MASTER 


NO.  94-82296 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  mal<ing  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  of  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions.  In  addition, 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  international  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research." 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright 
Infringement. 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  involve 
violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Author: 


Jennings,  Irwin  George 


Title: 


Study  of  tlie  New 
City  milk  problem 

Place: 

New  York 

Date: 

1919 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


MASTER    NEGATIVE   # 


ORIGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FILMED  -    EXISTING  BIBLIOGRAPHIC  RECORD 


6FSINBS8 
1310 

'44 


Jennings,  Irwin  Gkorge,  1875-  '"=  M 

A  study  of  the  New  York  city  milk  problem,  by  Irwin 
G.  Jennings  ...  New  York,  The  National  civic  federation, 
1919. 

1  p.  I..  58  p.    tables  (1  fold.)    23'"". 

Thesis  (ph.  d.)— Columbia  university,  1919. 
Vita. 


h  Milk  supply — New  York  (City) 


Library  of  Congress 
Columbia  Univ.  Libr. 


O 


SF2S8.N5J4 


i2j 


20-3417 


I 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM  SIZE:   ?)SVYnnr\ 


REDUCTION  RATIO: 


\11 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:   lA  (ilAJ    IB      IIB 


DATE  FILMED:       \2-S-^^ 


INITIALS: 


\a1W 


TRACKING  #  : 


Af5^    {^3Co^ 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES,  BETHLEHEM,  PA, 


%f^ 


•.«     ms. 


00 
<J1 

3 
3 


2  > 


IS 

T3  P 

-%  ^ 

(O 

N   CO 

Cjo!::: 

CJl 
CT>X 

^-< 

OOM 
O 


CJl 

3 


> 

CD 

a- CI 
o  m 
Q."n 
CD  CD 

OQ 

^5  O 

<  -H 

^  CZ 


N 


X 

M 


^^ 


e> 


^. 


S^ 
y 


o: 


e? 


^k 


>^ 


U1 

o 

3 
3 


o 

o 

3 
3 


en 


O 


pi!|=F|?|5|^|- 


I 


ro 
bo 


o 


00 


s 


ro 


1.0  mm 


1.5  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghi|klmnopqrstu«wxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


^o 


kv 


,.< 


V 


& 


^o 


^o 


fp 


^fvT 


'-^. 


y^. 


4^r^A 


^o 


t^^ 


€^. 


V 


fe 


f^ 


^vnni^ 


fo> 


m 

O 
O 

■om  -o 

o>o 

30  ^  _k 
>  C  CO 

I  u  ^ 

0(/)     ; 

m 

t 

3D 

O 
m 


e 


m 


4^ 


^ 


^%£* 


^ 

^^r* 


!-• 

lO 

Ol 

o 

3 
3 

3 
3 

o  ^ 


3  I 
3  C 


M 
OOM. 


O 


^'~ji» 
# 


[:;»!!:■''■■ 


A  Study  of  the  New  York  City 
Milk  Problem 


By  Irwin  G.  Jennings 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Faculty 

of  Political  Science,   Columbia  University. 


% 


SCT" 


^-  -OJSINF5S 


Puhlithtd  hy 

The  National  Civic  Federation 
New  York,  1919 


Coluinlita  (HnttJf  rst'tp 


l.niF<.\KY 


School  of  Business 


I 


i  I 


iiipiip»iiiiiipppiipiw^^  


"""     ■*  "^^"1,^^ 


V 


"'■^-■'■ 


M 
1 


Is* 

m 


A  Study  of  the  New  York  City 
Milk  Problem 


B}f  Irwin  G.  Jbnnings 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Faculty 

of  Political   Science,   Columbia  University. 


"Y*^   Tr^„ 


J  J  ^       J 

SCHOOL  OF  BUSINESS 


Publiihtd  h 

The  National  Civic  Federation 
New  York,  1919 


r  I 


<«^Wmwi«««w<iH4|pSHtfWHMfliw«io«jMJanw,M«ll^^ 


'TT- 


mmmmm'^ 


^^mr 


\v\ 


I 

[  Iti 
if 


-ll 


r-     r 


I 


Cm- 


/ '  I ( 


V   4 
'^    i 


rp 


S ''  Z'Z^ 


1, 


INTRODUCTION 

In  tKe  monUi  of  September,  1916,  the  receipt  of  the  daily  milk 

SZ  IZ  ^"'^  ^'7  T  r  r 'I  ^P""'*^-  For  mo^elh™  a 
b^'on  a^^Htf!?  *"•*?  the  leadership  of  their  "association"  had 

Se^  iCf  .f ^''" -lu*-  ""T^  P"''^  ''"">  *«*  New  York 
Jp^l^'lt  ,  V:-^  ?  °""^  "  *''  possession  of  those  seeking  to 
it^I  4  •?  PP""*  ^i***?""'  y*  destroyed  by  the  striking  pro- 
ducers. A  large  part  of  the  milk  received  during  this  period  wa, 
not  of  a  sanitary  character.    A  deadlock  was  reached    The  Mayor  of 

S^^^iJs  wLr^r  "^  ^^'l  *°  ^'"  *"  "^'IP-'^'  ^"'  »>«  """^e  no 
progress  whatever.    The  dealers  were  proceeding  on  the  theory  that 

4e  public  would  not  stand  for  a  rise  iS  the  pri^  of  mHk  a^^theb 

fh^^fT^  ""  ""''"  *^f  T'^  *"«•"  »'^^'"'«'  in  Ae  cost  of  milk  to 
Aem  if  they  were  compelled  to  sell  at  the  then  retail  prices,  would 
dnvepractically  all  of  the  smaller  companies  out  of  bLi^. 
frnm  tht^/  I  "^^T"*  conscious  that  the  price  they  were  receiving 
from  the  dealers  did  not  cover  the  cost  of  production  and  so  werf 
determined  at  all  ev«.ts  to  see  the  strike  through.     Bey^d  Ae 

IhSt'^f'^^/N*"  yT'-  *.r  ""^  "^  authoritative  airtion  of 
the  right  of  the  New  York  public  to  receive  its  daily  suddIv     The 

Ts  ^el'^h  ^"''•"^  l^^'^il''"'*  ^^  P"^'-  P"'''  ^^^^^'  From 
ttis  time  on,  the  price  of  milk  to  the  consumer  was  progressively 

higher  until  m  November,  1917,  but  little  more  than  a  yw  from 
4e   .me  of  4e  first  strike  grade  B  milk  rose  from  9  cL^toT 
cente  or  an  advance  of  66-2/3%  over  its  former  price. 
hp<r«n  t^f  t  ^      '  '=°?''oversy  again  rose.    Public  authorities 

began  to  take  cognizance  of  the  situation  and  the  District  Attorney 
even  threatened  to  indict  the  leaders  of  the  producers  who  were 

^^tit'l  T^'^T^^  ^™/°  ^  *'^°'»''*««  demands  It  w^ 
reported  that  if  the  District  Attorney  should  carry  out  his  thr^ 

against  one  or  more  of  die  members  of  the  Produ<irs'  aZ^S. 
Ynrt       1^""  ^  •''"'^.  "^^  *«  "^^^  destroyed.    Again  the  N^ 

^jf^'T^^^^i  ^?f^'}'^  ""<*  ^>^in'the  comroversy  w^ 
settl^  by  the  New  York  public's  paying  the  bill. 

F«l-;°i'^^*!i"?-°°'"^-  *^  a  je?r  has  passed.  In  the  meanthne,  the 
Federal  Food  Commission  which  had  adjusted  the  price  between  the 
r.^^^^L^'^^  *ff  distributor  during  the  war,  after  fhe  armistice,  dis- 
contmued  Its  efforts  along  that  line.  Under  the  Commission  the 
P^K^l'^-^J  J'?^  ^%  the  dealers  to  charge  their  patrons  i^ll 

T^A^l^ty,  *7  ""'"^  "'  the  commission  permitted  the  producers 
to  add  to  the  existing  price.    Thus  both  the  dealers  and  fanners  got 

?0?o^  n  "r'''  "u  *u''  '*1P^"^  °'  **>  consumer.  But,  in  Janu Jy, 
1919,  the  first  month  that  these  two  interests  in  the  industry  were  left 

l,^riS^  ^^'  °"  """""f  "^  **'.'  ^^"'^  "»  a«^««'  a  milk  strike 
resulted.    There  were  three  conflicting  factors  in  this  strike,  the 

dairymen  s  league,  the  milk  dealers'  pool  and  the  New  York  pijjlic 


i 


\i 


The  strike  was  finally  settled  by  the  dealers  and  producers 
agreeing  upon  prices  for  a  period  of  three  months,  after  which  time, 
the  questions  of  future  prices  will  again  arise  with  new  possibilities 
of  disagreement. 

A  number  of  inquiries  and  investigations  are  now  under  way, 
some  of  which  have  been  undertaken  by  agencies  more  or  less  favor- 
able to  a  particular  interest  of  the  industry,  and  possibly  none  of 
them  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  making  and  justifying  con- 
structive reconmiendations.  It  would  seem  therefore,  that  a  most 
pressing  demand  has  arisen  for  an  unprejudiced  inquiry  into  the 
facts  and  the  law  with  a  view  to  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  milk 
industry  as  a  whole  and  of  securing  both  a  more  economical  and 
uninterrupted  service  of  milk  to  the  New  York  public.  The  scope 
of  this  study  will  cover: — 

1.  Whether  or  not  the  health  and  welfare  of  the  New  York 
public  shall  be  periodically  placed  in  jeopardy  by  lack  of 
co-operation  among  the  various  interests  of  the  milk  industry. 

2.  What  is  the  right  of  the  New  York  public  to  an  efficiently 
produced,  distributed  and  controlled  milk  supply? 

3.  What  are  the  facts  concerning  the  efficiency  of  the  produc- 
tion, distribution  and  sanitary  control  of  its  milk  supply? 

4.  What  results  may  be  expected  from  the  co-operation  of  the 
various  interests  involved  and  by  efficient  business  organiza- 
tion throughout  the  industry? 

5.  How  far  should  this  right  be  secured  by  the  exercise  of  the 
public  power? 

Greater  New  York  is  today  a  city  of  more  than  five  million 
people  and  growing  rapidly.  In  it  there  are  estimated  by  the  Board 
of  Health  to  be  130,000  babies  under  one  year  of  age  and  126,000 
babies  under  two  years  of  age.  The  health,  welfare  and  probably 
the  lives  of  the  greater  percentage  of  these  babies  are  dependent  upon 
an  uninterrupted,  sanitary  milk  supply.  Besides  this,  there  are  a 
great  number  of  convalescing  invalids,  some  of  them  wounded 
soldiers  who  must  have  milk.  Milk  is  a  vital  necessity.  There  are 
no  satisfactory  substitutes  for  it.  The  milk  supply  cannot  with  im- 
punity be  tampered  with.  To  do  so  may  mean  death  to  many  human 
beings.  To  be  the  direct  or  indirect  cause  of  a  single  death  means 
more  than  fines  or  jail  to  the  guilty  person.  The  New  York  public's 
right  to  life  and  health  is  fundamental.  There  are  some  things  about 
which  the  interests  may  quarrel,  but  their  quarrels  should  not  be 
allowed  to  imperil  the  lives  of  the  people. 

Although  New  York  City  will  always  be  dependent  upon  the 
outside  world  for  its  food  and  drink,  it  has  an  undoubted  right  to 
them  which  should  not  be  interfered  with  even  if  drastic  penal  legis- 
lation is  necessary  to  emphasize  it.  It  is  reasonable  to  expect  &at 
its  milk  supply  will  be  received  at  a  cost  to  the  public  which  con- 
templates only  a  reasonable  profit  after  it  has  been  efficiently  pro- 
duced, distributed  and  controlled.    If  milk  is  a  vital  necessity  and  is 


universally  used  by  the  New  York  public,  then  its  production,  dis- 
tribution and  control  become  very  like  public  service  functions  and 
whoever  is  engaged  therein  is  accountable  to  the  people  for  their 
proper  and  efficient  performance  and  any  extraordinary  profits  de- 
rived therefrom. 

But  those  so  engaged,  whether  as  producers,  distributors  or  as 
controlling  agents,  are  entitled  to  be  treated  as  public  service  agents 
and  to  receive  credit  and  a  fair  profit  for  the  service  rendered  and 
for  the  capital  loaned  to  the  public,  providing  their  work  has  been 
efficiently  done  and  their  capital  efficiently  used.  For  a  number  of 
years  a  fair  profit  has  not  been  accorded  either  to  the  milk  producer 
nor  to  the  milk  distributor.  This  fact  has  been  evidenced  by  the 
unrest  that  has  existed  in  the  country  among  the  producers  and  the 
large  number  of  distributors  who  have  been  forced  out  of  business. 
To  run  a  dairy  farm  successfully,  requires  brains  and  understanding, 
investment  of  capital  and  a  sympathetic  attitude  towards  sanitary 
regulations.  Why  should  it  not  pay  the  farmer  to  meet  these  con- 
ditions? To  administer  a  great  milk  business  in  New  York  City  with 
its  various  responsibilities  and  with  the  great  variety  of  business  and 
sanitary  functions  to  be  performed,  is  worthy  of  a  profit  commen- 
surate with  self-respect  and  with  financial  health.  Therefore,  before 
the  more  drastic  features  of  the  public  power  are  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  milk  industry  or  before  the  public  irrevocably  assumes  the 
responsibility  of  owning  and  running  an  industry  of  such  great  mag- 
nitude, the  opportunity  should  be  given  for  the  various  interests  of 
the  milk  industry  to  co-operate  upon  a  basis  where  all  can  see  a 
reasonable  profit  and  where  there  will  still  be  present  the  stimulus 
of  additional  financial  reward  for  the  intelligent  use  of  efficient  busi- 
ness organization  and  of  business  methods  throughout  the  industry. 

No  interest  in  the  milk  industry  has  in  the  past  sufficiently  ap- 
preciated the  dignity,  importance  and  responsibility  of  the  functions 
it  has  been  performing.  To  this  fact  is  due  most  of  the  disrepute  into 
which  the  industry  has  fallen.  The  public  attitude  and  that  of  the 
press  toward  the  industry  have  been  wrong.  The  milk  distributor, 
instead  of  being  looked  upon  as  a  business  man  performing  a  public 
service  function  and  entitled  to  credit  for  work  well  done,  has  been 
universally  regarded  with  suspicion.  The  presumption  has  been 
against  him.  No  morsel  of  news  has  been  so  luscious,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  ordinary  reporter,  as  a  front  page  account  of  adulteration  or 
dirty  containers  or  of  responsibility  for  disease  traced  to  a  milk 
dealer's  door.  It  has  been  popular  pastime  for  the  social  reformer 
to  attack  the  milk  dealer  and  to  charge  him  with  fraud,  dishonesty 
and  uncleanliness,  and  the  latter  has  had  well  defined  reasons  for 
taking  a  position  calling  for  the  least  possible  publicity. 

The  court  records  have  been  against  the  dealer  and  as  they 
stand  the  presumption  is  fairly  adverse.  But  these  records  are  not 
a  fair  index  of  the  true  situation.  The  following  compilations  made 
by  the  New  York  Milk  Committee,  of  which  the  1914  figures  have 
never  been  published,  are  interesting  on  this  point. 

3 


* 


Illl 


I 


I 


2    i2 

«     CO 


CO 


iM      vo      ^ 

0\        l-H        t«« 


S      S 


S  ^     -"^  ^ 


\0      M      l^ 

M        C^        rH 


ifi 


C4      N      00 


cO     ^^ 


•s  o 


N 


e<« 


w         •-< 


s 


irt 


i-M     O     >-^ 


00      00      CO      LO 


_  o  B     2     uo 

I 


esi 


c  s 


2  ^ 


VO 


CO 


^ 


s 


csi 


M 


CO      fO 


N 


CO 


^     « 


CO 


lO      lO      1/5      »-• 


00      !>•      Si 

o\     IC     ^ 


N     CO     ^ 


s^ 


I/) 
CM 


s 


N 


<;s 


f-<     so     eo     CO 


lA 


S  g 


ot     cS^  00         00     t**     fo     ^ 


«       ^ 


S         " 


S      S  o  5     2 


S  e«« 


S        2 


2    ?2 


CO       CO       i-H 
pH       CO 


CM      1-4      vO      0>      M      i-<      00 


>    s 


CQ        y-H        fH 

^f     CO      ^^ 


^ 


C/3 


•S2        2     » 


CM 


CO         r^     ^ 

D5  i-H         .-4 


0^      lO      •-•      ^ 


f-l      N 


»-4      CO 


1—4       oO 


CO 


T3         fl   B  W 


tfJ. 


as   2   ^ 

CO 
CO 


CM 


lO      On 


Q      in      00 
^      VO      vO 


CO 

CO     cO     f^ 


t^     vo     ^     eo 


c^     I— I    irt    lO 

~       CO      VO 


§ 


S^ 


s 


CM       I— <       0\      CM      lO 


CO      CO      CM 


rr!      00 


s   22      ^ 


m4        t^ 


§ 


CM      00      '^i      0\      ^      N 


CM       <— •       ON 

in    ON    m 


i-H      CM 


lO 

in 

00 


in 
00 


;:::   § 


in    in    CO    CO    CO    CM 


00 


CM       CM 

CO 


C4 


Ch        VO 
1-1       ^ 


i-H     o         I— t     in     cr» 


in      r-t  ^ 


CM 


CO      CM 


CM        1-4        ^        1-4 


CO      CO      CM      1-4 


CM 


^      §3 


ON 

in 


Sm 


in 


w4  ^ 


S 


3      S 


l-H       lO       t»       fH  CO 


^ 

g 


8?      S5 


tA 


£S 


'-*      y> 


eo 


-    s 


CM 


^ 


lA 

A 

VO 


^    s 


§  I 


9 


:    s  : 

.       o     . 

0} 

i 

•     1    ' 

.     43    . 

:  a 

1 

^ 

'    8  '- 

pending 
vious  year 

:   ^ 
'    8 

u 

■   1 

10 

4-i 

C 

I            Of 

arged  . . . 

pending 
.^1  «t 

:    a  : 

^^        en   0) 


ea 


O       oJ 

H     U 


a;  ^ 


>       cd  vt-i      <— I 


V 


a 


;3      O*      (o      35 


S      S, 


en   u 


eS 


ZH         Ofcco*-^<QQU 


6-2 


^' 


!!i 


Under  the  first  analysis  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  on  an  average, 
in  94%  of  the  prosecutions,  the  dealer  was  found  guilty.  If  the 
same  number  of  criminal  prosecutions  were  brought  against  other 
citizens  with  the  same  financial  ability  possessed  by  these  milk 
dealers  to  hire  attorneys  and  carry  the  cases  through  the  courts  and 
where  the  rule  obtained  that  conviction  must  be  on  evidence  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt,  a  much  smaller  percentage  of  convictions  would 
be  shown.  But  from  the  business  standpoint,  the  milk  dealer  could 
not  afford  to  fight  this  type  of  prosecution  as  he  would  others.  The 
limited  number  of  jail  sentences  and  of  fines  imposed,  as  shown 
above,  together  with  the  small  amount  of  publicity  incurred  by  this 
course,  justified  him  in  his  attitude. 

Under  the  analysis  of  violations,  the  very  nature  of  two  of  the 
charges  would  seem  to  designate  the  milk  dealer  as  an  unfit  public 
servant.  Adulteration  of  milk  and  unclean  containers  bring  before 
our  eyes  a  most  condemning  picture;  but  when  we  remember  that 
most  of  the  cases  of  adulteration  were  based  upon  the  conclusive 
presumption,  that  milk  below  the  legal  standard  in  butter  fat,  is 
adulterated,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  at  certain  seasons  of  the 
year  in  New  York  state,  milk  directly  drawn  from  many  of  the  cows  is 
below  such  standard,  the  crime  is  not  so  terrible  after  all.  When  it  is 
further  understood  that  if  a  milk  driver  receives  a  dirty  bottle  from 
a  house  wife  and  it  is  found  in  his  possession,  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  can  refute  the  presumption  of  his  guilt  in  using  unclean  con- 
tainers, the  difl&culty  of  his  position  is  apparent.  On  the  other  hand, 
this  non-resistance  on  the  part  of  the  milk  dealer  has  encouraged  the 
courts  to  construct  the  above  legal  presumptions  against  him  that 
would  not  be  tolerated  in  other  cases. 

The  good  will  of  a  milk  business  is  its  main  asset.  The  milk 
plants,  the  machinery,  the  wagons  and  the  cans  of  a  concern  that  is 
not  going  are  worth  but  little.  To  preserve  the  good  will  is  most 
important.  The  most  eflfective  menace  to  this  good  will  is  unfavor- 
able newspaper  notoriety.  To  keep  his  cases  out  of  the  general 
courts  has  been  considered  by  the  milk  dealer,  essential  in  order  to 
escape  such  publicity.  To  plead  guilty  and  to  take  reprimands  in 
the  minor  courts  accomplished  this  purpose.  While  in  the  interests 
of  public  health,  such  matters  as  penalizing  a  milk  dealer  for  real 
adulteration  and  for  a  criminally  careless  use  of  dirty  containers 
are  well  within  the  scope  of  the  police  power,  it  is  also  a  fact  that 
herein  this  great  public  power  has  often  been  used  to  affect  detri- 
mentally the  morale  of  an  important  branch  of  the  milk  industry. 

The  application  of  the  power  itself  is  not  to  blame,  but  the 
attendant  attitude  of  the  public  through  its  agents  of  publicity  and 
justice  has  exercised  a  most  repressive  influence.  Over-regulation 
can  be  so  used  as  to  deprive  New  York  of  its  milk  supply,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  its  more  constructive  use  may  be  used  to  insure  a 
better  and  more  wholesome  product.  At  one  extreme,  there  can  be 
invoked  intelligent,  constructive,  stimulating  regulation,  at  the  other, 


repressive  and  destructive  prosecution.  Any  governmental  regula- 
tion, however  slight  it  may  be  and  though  it  may  insure  co-operation 
and  efficiency  throughout  the  industry,  will  necessarily  have  to  be 
applied  under  the  sanction  of  the  police  power.  The  more  intelli- 
gent the  regulation,  the  more  in  harmony  it  is  with  the  basic  needs 
of  the  industry  and  the  more  stimulating  and  effective  it  will  be. 

The  following  study  of  the  milk  industry  will  seek  to  show  cer- 
tain inefficiencies  throughout  the  industry  and  their  causes  together 
with  some  constructive  suggestions  as  to  remedies.  While  recog- 
nizing the  ability  of  the  New  York  public  to  assume  the  ownership 
of  the  milk  industry  and  the  moral  and  legal  grounds  for  the  regu- 
lation thereof  by  a  state  commission,  it  will  urge  as  the  better 
alternative  the  value  of  co-operation  between  the  conflicting  interests 
of  the  industry,  the  continuance  of  a  proper  division  of  labor,  the 
necessity  for  faith  in  each  other's  honesty  of  purpose  and  a  proper 
appreciation  by  all  concerned  of  the  important  element  of  service 
in  producing  and  distributing  clean  milk  to  the  world's  leading  city. 

In  submitting  the  tables  contained  in  the  following  chapters,  no 
attempt  will  be  made  to  claim  for  them  a  greater  scientific  value 
than  appears  on  their  face.  They  are  generally  based  upon  an 
analysis  of  a  considerable  amount  of  data  gathered  on  a  certain  day 
or  covering  a  short  period  of  time.  The  time  selected  to  gather  most 
of  this  data  was  in  the  early  part  of  December,  1917,  during  ap- 
proximately normal  production  in  the  country  and  before  the  con- 
solidations which  have  been  so  largely  in  vogue  among  the  dealers 
during  the  past  year,  had  greatly  affected  the  industry.  An  analysis 
of  data  covering  longer  periods  of  time  might  have  been  made,  but 
the  variations  due  to  prices,  locality,  types  of  cattle  and  other  matters 
would  still  affect  its  scientific  accuracy.  On  the  other  hand,  a  study 
covering  a  shorter  period  is  valuable  as  showing  the  tendencies  and 
relations,  because  a  larger  number  of  facts  can  be  gathered,  which 
so  far  as  they  go,  are  more  likely  to  be  accurate  and  will  not  mis- 
lead unless  they  are  mislabeled. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Inefficiencies  in  Production. 

The  basis  of  the  whole  milk  industry  is  production.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  every  branch  of  the  industry  would  naturally 
be  influenced  greatly  by  production  processes  and  organization  and 
that  production  must  be  intelligent,  efficient  and  sufficient.  All  other 
branches  of  the  industry  are  dependent  upon  the  producer.  This 
does  not  mean  that  the  producer  should  control  these  other  branches, 
but  it  is  most  necessary  that  he  work  with  them  and  they  with  and 
for  him.  The  producer  should  be  the  first  to  welcome  co-operation 
and  the  other  interests  in  the  business  must  be  persuaded  to  volun- 
tarily or  involuntarily  co-operate  with  him. 


t 


k 


According  to  Board  of  Health  Reports  the  milk  supply  of  New 
York  City  is  obtained  from  more  than  30,000  farms  in  six  different 
states  and  Canada,  although  more  than  three-fourths  of  the  supply 
under  normal  conditions  comes  from  New  York  State  alone.  It  can 
easily  be  seen  that  in  a  production  process  where  there  are  more  than 
30,000  bosses  with  almost  as  many  different  ideals  and  attitudes  to- 
wards production,  great  efficiency  therein  can  scarcely  be  expected. 
But  much  can  be  done  to  make  conditions  better.  The  same  business 
principles  obtain  in  the  production  of  milk  as  in  other  lines  of  pro- 
duction.  Such  fundamentals  as  centralization  of  control  can  only 
come  with  association  and  regulation.  But  much  can  be  done 
through  educational  processes  to  arouse  a  realization  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  industry  and  to  promote  among  its  several  interests 
a  mutual  faith  and  confidence  in  each  other. 

The  principle  causes  of  inefficiency  in  milk  production  are: 

First.  Treating  it  as  a  side  line.  Many  dairymen  seem  to  evince 
no  interest  or  enthusiasm  in  the  production  of  milk  as  a  science  or 
a  business.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  that  no  man  can  expect 
to  succeed  in  any  business  or  profession  in  which  he  does  not  believe 
and  into  which  he  can  not  put  his  heart. 

Second.  The  failure  to  use  ordinary  business  methods  in  the 
production  of  milk.  All  well  organized  branches  of  production  con- 
template at  least  three  things,  capacity  production,  the  use  of  reason- 
able accounting  methods  which  will  show  the  relation  between  the 
cost  of  the  articles  produced  and  their  price,  and  a  constructive  pur- 
pose governing  the  production  processes.  One  or  more  of  these 
business  fundamentals  are  generally  absent  in  the  production  of  milk. 

The  ordinary  milk  producer  seldom  looks  upon  his  farm  as  a 
producing  plant  carrying  with  it  a  certain  fixed  overhead  which  may 
become  more  or  less  destructive  according  to  the  way  his  farm  is 
used.  In  dairying,  there  certainly  must  be  a  relation  between  the 
number  of  acres  in  the  farm,  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  build- 
ings, the  amount  of  additional  capital  that  can  be  applied  to  the 
farm  economically,  the  number  of  cows  maintained  and  the  amount 
of  milk  produced.  In  contemplating  the  amount  of  capital  to  be 
expended  in  buildings  and  cows,  the  availability  and  proximity  of 
the  farm  to  the  market  or  shipping  station  should  be  considered  and 
the  question  asked  and  answered  as  to  whether  such  distance  may  not 
preclude  its  ever  becoming  the  proper  site  for  a  profitable  dairy. 
If  so,  conunon  sense  would  seem  to  dictate  that  the  foundations  of 
a  producing  dairy  should  not  be  laid  upon  such  a  farm. 

As  to  the  consideration  of  reasonable  accounting,  there  is  no 
question  but  what  this  is  vital  to  the  successful  dairy.  No  amount  of 
argument  or  sentiment  will  justify  the  maintenance  of  a  cow  that 
will  not  produce  her  feed  in  milk  and  yet  experience  is  showing  that 
there  are  thousands  of  such  cows  which  are  not  known  to  be  such. 
Of  course,  if  all  the  unproductive  cows  were  killed  at  once,  a  milk 
shortage  would  follow.     But  practically,  there  is  no  such  danger 


8 


and  much  may  be  gained  by  an  intelligent  examination  of  the  herds 
and  a  determined  effort  put  forth  to  eliminate  unprofitable  cows  and 
to  breed  for  more  profitable  production.  The  very  great  chances 
are  that  boarders  will  beget  boarders  and  so  the  same  old  inefficient 
cow  organization  is  maintained  from  year  to  year. 

Of  very  great  importance  is  the  third  principle,  that  of  having 
a  really  constructive  purpose  in  mind  in  organizing  for  better  dairy- 
ing. Such  a  purpose  will  provide  for  accounting  and  for  the  elim- 
ination of  boarders,  and  for  breeding  the  herd  toward  a  profitable 
production  basis.  Such  a  purpose  will  give  character  to  the  whole 
farm  and  everyone  and  everything  connected  with  it.  It  is  the  big 
requisite  for  success  in  any  industry  and  no  less  so  in  the  produc- 
tion of  milk.  All  the  inspiration  that  comes  to  the  successful  man  in 
any  business,  may  be  felt  by  the  dairymen.  Dairying  is  even  better 
in  this  respect  than  successful  farming. 

In  the  Fall  of  1914,  the  writer,  as  Secretary  of  one  of  New 
York's  larger  milk  companies,  attended  the  National  Dairy  show  at 
Chicago  on  the  theory  that  here  would  be  a  good  place  to  study 
cows.  Much  to  his  satisfaction,  he  found  that  there  were  plenty  of 
cows  to  be  studied.  He  addressed  himself  to  the  owners  of  the 
various  herds  of  pure  bred  stock  and  was  treated  with  great  cour- 
tesy. They  showed  him  their  prize  cows  and  all  their  good  points, 
and  they  answered  all  his  questions. 

The  next  day  he  repaired  to  the  ground  floor  where  the  prize 
stock  was  being  judged  and  watched  this  process  with  great  interest, 
prejudging  the  cows  himself  with  varying  success.  But  after  spend- 
ing several  hours  at  this  he  felt  dissatisfied  with  his  progress  for  the 
reason  that  these  cows  were  of  the  purest  type  and  the  best  in  their 
class,  whereas  the  type  of  cow,  the  study  of  which  would  be  most 
valuable  to  him  was  the  ordinary  grade  cow  that  would  commonly 
be  found  in  the  New  York  territory.  He  went  up  into  the  barns 
again  and  there  is  one  corner  he  found  exactly  what  he  wished  most 
to  see.  The  United  States  government  was  making  a  public  demon- 
stration of  the  relation  which  exists  between  cows  and  their  feed,  and 
the  amount  and  value  of  milk  produced  and  had  chosen  for  the  pur- 
pose nine  conunon  grade  cows  of  dissimilar  types. 

The  writer  stayed  with  this  herd  of  cows  during  the  remainder 
of  the  show  and  assumed  to  himself  all  the  functions  of  ownership, 
watching  their  feeding,  their  milking  and  the  preparation  of  the 
records,  also  inquiring  specifically  into  the  history  of  the  cows  and 
the  manner  of  their  acquisition  by  the  government  superintendent. 
He  found  that  his  herd  consisted  of  some  very  good  cows  and  of 
some  decidedly  unprofitable  ones. 


4 


II 


^.  i 


TA 

BLE  II 

Price  Paid 

^alue  of  Milk 

at-S-S 

No. 

Broed 

for  Cows 

Qti.  Milk 

Fat  Tcit 

Lbs.  Fat 

2  - 

4c.  per  Quart  ^  S 

> 

U 

1 

G.  Jer. 

$50 

3.8 

4.6 

.4 

.13 

.15 

21 

2 

G.  Short. 

80 

6.1 

4.3 

.57 

.19 

.24 

,22 

3 

G.  Short. 

60 

9.3 

3.5 

.67 

.22 

.37 

.23 

4 

G.  Jer. 

60 

12.1 

4.9 

1.26 

.42 

.48 

.23 

5 

G.  Hoi 

70 

13.5 

3.7 

1.1 

.35 

.52 

.24 

€ 

G.  Short. 

70 

15. 

3.6 

1.12 

.38 

.60 

.24 

7 

G.  Guem. 

100 

15.6 

4.4 

1.47 

.49 

.62 

.25 

8 

G.  Guem. 

160 

15.7 

6.5 

2.17 

.71 

.63 

.25 

9 

G.  Hoi. 

150 

23.5 

3.8 

1.9 

.63 

.92 

.28 

The  appended  table  is  the  average  record  for  each  cow  during 
the  week's  experience.  The  cows  were  about  the  same  age  and 
freshened  at  or  near  the  same  date.  On  the  basis  of  fat  value,  some 
of  them  did  not  even  pay  for  their  feed,  let  alone  the  overhead  and 
other  expenses  that  would  have  to  be  accounted  for  as  the  basis  of 
farm  production  cost.  On  the  per  quart  basis,  calculated  at  4c  per 
quart,  the  average  price  to  the  farmer  at  that  time,  the  showing 
was  but  little  better.  The  last  day  spent  at  the  show  was  the  most 
illuminating  to  the  writer.  Although  he  himself  knew  from  his  ob- 
servation the  relative  productive  value  of  these  cows,  he  wanted  to 
gain  some  idea  of  the  ability  of  those,  especially  dairymen,  who 
visited  the  exhibit  to  judge  the  value  of  the  different  cows  in  the 
herd,  before  they  knew  the  facts.  As  the  cows  were  to  be  sold  at 
the  close  of  the  show,  he  asked  various  visitors  at  the  exhibit  to 
assist  him  in  appraising  the  value  of  the  animals.  At  least  a  score 
of  practical  farmers,  dairy  experts,  and  agricultural  writers,  after 
careful  examination,  appraised  the  cows,  but  no  two  of  them  agreed 
in  their  estimates  nor  correctly  adjudged  them  according  to  their 
respective  showings  in  the  demonstration.  Much  surprise  was  man- 
ifested when  the  facts  were  learned.  Practically  all  agreed  that 
number  9  was  a  high  grade  cow,  but  as  to  the  others  there  was  a 
great  diversity  of  opinion,  one  man  valuing  number  1  above  number 
8,  the  estimates  of  which  latter  cow  varied  from  beef  to  $100.00. 
The  reasonable  conclusion  from  this  experience  would  seem  to  be 
that  the  average  farmer  or  dairyman  does  not  and  probably  cannot 
know  whether  or  not  a  dairy  cow  will  prove  to  be  a  profitable  milk 
producer  by  mere  physical  inspection  and  without  keeping  an  actual 
account  of  her  production  as  compared  with  the  cost  of  her  main- 
tenance during  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to  learn  the  facts. 


10 


TABLE  m 

"S 

Creamerj  ^  &g  -  v  ^  £X  ^t 

S  is  mS.  S  *S.  ^S  SU  *-ry  *-& 

io'O'  ^o  u  &  <  < 

T  17  681  40  1,827  276  118  5.8   6.6  2.68 

C  27  874  32  3,051  264  200  4.4  11.6  3.5 

R  G '.'.  37  1,251  33  4,222  382  271  4.6  11.  3.37 

S  F     .28  1391  50  4,462  535  429  3.2   8.3  3.21 

t     56  1,464  26  4,327  454  276  5.3   9.5  2.95 

p  ;.  22  1,549  70  3,114  347  242  6.4   9.  2. 

SC"  ;*.;...  45  1858  41  4^626  475  261  7.1   9.9  2.49 

E  C*  C  R  45  1,904  42  7,630  797  372  5.1   9.6  4. 

Sil  32  2,069  64  5  378  493  360  5.7  10.9  2.6 

S  Ch*  31  2,443  79  5,470  588  376  6.5   9.3  2iJ4 

B    ".'.'.'..  42  2,507  59  4,432  500  380  6.6   8.9  1.77 

S.*  Fron 39  2,684  69  6,033  857  343  7.8   7  2.25 

B.  M 35  2,8%  82  3,869  507  390  7.4   7.6  1.34 

A  76  3  272  43  9,208  1,017  599  6.5   9  2.81 

S  St 55  3,361  61  8,566  1,108  601  5.6   7.7  2.55 

S  Fr     .81  4090  49  15,379  1,765  1,011  4.    8.7  3.76 

E.  w :.*::...  79  4,798    61  10,791  i,i76    792    6.1    9.2  2.25 

S    L 50  5,069  101  7,998  811  571  8.6  9.9  1.58 

E.   St 109  5,199  48  15,981  1,377  901  5.8  11.6  3.07 

E.H 59  5,529  94  6.381  797  515  10.7  8  1.15 

Shek.   37  7,838  211  7,635  1,026  853  9.2  7.4  .97 

S.  G.  G 63  8,301  132  13,921  2,246  1,354  6.1  6.2  1.67 

H     95  12,471  131  11,863  1,928  1,476  8.6  6.2  .95 

S.P 59  13,280  225  13,016  1,836  1,391  9.5  7.  .98 

S.   T 73  14,332  196  13,080  1,766  1,011  14.2  7.4  9.1 

Table  number  three  is  based  upon  answers  returned  to  a  ques- 
tionnaire submitted  to  25  superintendents  of  creameries  or  shipping 
stations  of  various  sizes  located  in  different  sections  of  the  New  York 
territory  and  performing  various  functions.  The  answers  were  care- 
fully prepared  by  the  creamery  superintendents  from  their  records, 
their  observations  and  from  interrogating  their  patrons  on  the  day 
in  question.  The  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  show  the  relations 
existing  between  the  patrons  at  each  creamery  and  the  amount  of 
their  production,  also  between  the  cows  maintained  and  the  cows 
milked  by  them,  between  the  acres  owned  and  the  cows  maintained 
and  between  the  cows  milked,  the  quarts  per  cow  and  the  acres  per 
quart.  Data  covering  the  individual  patrons  of  each  creamery  was 
gathered  and  the  above  relations  for  each  individual  shown,  the  table 
itself  showing  only  the  average  situation  existing  at  each  creamery. 

The  table  gives  the  figures  for  the  production  of  a  single  day  in 
December,  1917,  on  1,295  farms,  consisting  of  192,260  acres,  main- 
taining 23,238  cows,  of  which  15,093  or  about  65%  were  being 
milked  at  the  time,  and  producing  on  that  day  111,111  quarts  of 
milk,  which  was  about  1/15  of  the  total  milk  supply  of  New  York 
City  for  that  day. 

11 


,3^*M,Jt  *«»  • 


1'  I 

It  > 

Ik' 
If ' 


The  size  of  the  creameries  varied  as  to  patrons  from  17  to  109 
and  in  amount  of  their  receipts  for  the  day  from  681  to  14,332  quarts. 
The  average  amount  of  quarts  delivered  to  the  creameries  on  that 
day  was  86,  a  little  more  than  2  cans,  although  the  actual  average 
for  one  of  the  creameries  was  as  low  as  26  quarts  for  each  of  56 
patrons,  while  another  creamery  averaged  225  quarts  each  for  59 
patrons.  The  average  amount  of  milk  given  for  each  cow  milked 
was  7.3  quarts,  while  at  one  creamery  the  average  production  per 
cow  was  but  little  over  three  quarts.  The  average  production  per 
cow  of  nine  of  the  creameries  was  under  6  quarts  per  day,  which 
amount  has  been  estimated  to  be  about  the  average  amount  of  milk 
given  per  cow  in  New  York  State  on  the  yearly  basis.  The  table 
further  shows  that  8.2  acres  of  land  on  the  average  were  used  for 
the  maintenance  of  each  cow,  while  it  required  1.8  acres  of  land  for 
each  quart  of  milk  produced. 


Is 

CrattiBsrT  e  J* 

S  " 

< 

L-1    81 

P-l   176 

H-1    496 

SI    224 

B-1    164 

B.M..1   284 

C-1    75 

R.G..1    89 

A-1    160 

J4    172 

S-1    553 

P-l   711 

Fron.-l  144 

F-1   154 

C-1   123 

C.  H.-l   186 

Fer.-l    139 

G.G.-l    494 

SJ.-l    240 

Sl-I   211 

H-1    309 

Steo.-l   195 

W-1  255 


TABLE  IV 

m 

e 

6 

1 

a 

•2 

M 

ii 

1 
gu 

h 

< 

u 

u 

a 

< 

< 

2. 

160 

17 

11 

7.4 

9.4 

2. 

4.4 

240 

34 

22 

8. 

7.1 

1.4 

12.4 

158 

44 

38 

13.1 

3.6 

.32 

5.6 

357 

33 

28 

8. 

10.8 

1.6 

4.1 

164 

28 

21 

7.8 

6. 

1. 

7.1 

192 

32 

27 

10.5 

6. 

.68 

1.9 

116 

15 

10 

7.5 

7.7 

1.5 

2.2 

188 

15 

14 

5.6 

12.5 

2.1 

4. 

143 

22 

16 

10. 

6.5 

.9 

4.3 

107 

19 

9 

19.5 

5.6 

.63 

13.8 

367 

57 

48 

11.5 

6.5 

.66 

18. 

447 

70 

57 

12.5 

6.4 

.63 

3.6 

180 

30 

16 

9. 

6. 

1.3 

3.9 

413 

43 

27 

6. 

9, 

2.7 

3. 

117 

15 

10 

12.3 

8. 

.95 

4.7 

206 

23 

18 

10. 

9. 

1.1 

3.5 

260 

30 

18 

8. 

9. 

2. 

12.4 

358 

90 

64 

7.7 

4. 

.73 

6. 

170 

22 

17 

14. 

8. 

.71 

10. 

278 

58 

38 

10.4 

7. 

.7 

5.3 

200 

39 

23 

9. 

5. 

.95 

7.7 

137 

29 

21 

147 

47 

.44 

4.9 

287 

36 

23 

8.5 

8. 

1.5 

6.4 

217 

33 

26 

9.8 

6.6 

.85 

3.4 

213 

25 

18 

7.5 

8.5 

1.6 

12 


TABLE  V 

m 

3  5  "^ 

Creamery  ^S  a?  1  "?  *  i  I.C 

S  S  •  S  5  fi  •»  "5  Co  So  8  a 

IS.  i  %<  gS  *S  go  2u  BO- 

■<  Q  <  U  V  0>  <  < 

L.2   5              5i  57  4  2  2.5  14  11.4 

p.2   34  .9  105  10  7  4.8  10.  3. 

H-2    10  .25  97  13  6  1.7  7.5  9.7 

8-2    12  .3  87  9  5  2.4  9.7  7.3 

B-2   15  .37  99  10  7  2.1  9.9  6.6 

B.M.-2   SVs  .2  36  5  5  1.8  7.1  4.3 

C-2  SVi  .2  110  7  4  2.2  16.5  13.2 

R.G..2    9  .22  54  5  3  2.7  10.9  6. 

A.2    BVs  2  103  13  3  2.5  7.7  12.4 

J.2  23  .57  68  11  4  5.8  6.4  3. 

S-2  30  .75  183  11  7  4.5  16.6  6.1 

P-2 30.4  .75  135  12  7  4.3  11.2  44 

Fron.-2    12.5  .3  97  8  2  6.2  12.  8. 

F-2   9.4  .23  101  10  6  1.6  10.  IL 

G2   5.5  .14  87  7  2  2.8  12.4  16. 

C.H.-2    14  .35  107  7  6  2.3  15.3  7.6 

Fer..2    .......  12.5  .3  115  13  5  2.5  9.  9. 

G.G.-2    22.4  .56  103  17  7  3.2  6.  46 

S.J.-2    11.1  .28  140  9  5  2.2  15.5  12.6 

Tr..2    9.5  .24  108  11  6  1.6  9.8  11.3 

St.2    10.9  .27  51  7  5  2.2  7.3  47 

H.2    1\2  .53  29  4  3  7.1  7.3  1.3 

Steo.-2    9  .23  88  10  3  3.  8.8  9.8 

W.2  9  .23  101  10  4  2.2  10.1  11.2 

CC.R..2  ....      8  .2  172  11  4  2.  16.  .22 

Table  number  4  is  made  up  of  the  same  day's  figures  for  the 
three  largest  producers  in  each  creamery  and  table  5  from  the  three 
smallest  producers,  no  attention  being  paid  to  the  question  of  effi- 
ciency in  production  except  so  far  as  was  indicated  by  the  amount 
of  production.  Table  4  contains  the  average  showing  of  75  large 
producers,  while  table  5  contains  the  average  of  75  small  producers. 
As  in  the  one  case,  the  average  number  of  quarts  produced  per 
patron  is  much  larger,  so  in  the  other  case,  the  average  amount  is 
much  smaller  than  a  like  average  for  all  the  patrons  in  their  re- 
spective creameries.  Certainly  one  would  expect  to  see  a  diflferent 
type  of  farm  producing  246  quarts  per  patron  than  one  producing 
14  quarts  and  would  also  expect  a  different  amount  of  profit  per 
quart. 

The  figures  are  rather  illuminating,  however.  The  cows  of  the 
large  producers  gave  on  the  average  9.93  quarts  per  cow,  while  6.6 
acres  were  used  for  the  maintenance  of  each  cow  and  less  than  one 
acre  of  land  was  required  to  produce  one  quart  of  milk.  The  cows 
of  the  smaller  producers  gave  on  the  average,  less  than  three  quarts 
of  milk,  requiring  more  than  ten  acres  of  land  to  produce  one  quart 
of  milk.  It  will  be  noted  at  creamery  J-1  more  than  19  quarts  of 
milk  were  produced  per  cow,  while  in  table  5  the  average  of  the 

13 


i« 


laba 


producers  at  four  creameries  was  less  than  two  quarts  per  cow.  Of 
the  large  producers,  all  but  one  was  up  to  the  average  of  the  New 
York  State  production  per  cow,  while  in  table  5,  at  only  two  cream- 
eries was  the  average  number  of  quarts  per  cow  up  to  the  average 
state  production  per  cow.  Yet  the  average  number  of  acres  owned 
by  these  smaller  producers  was  97  and  the  average  number  of  cows 
maintained  by  each  was  ten.  It  is  obvious  that  if  the  price  of  milk 
is  determined,  so  as  to  permit  a  reasonable  profit  for  the  average 
New  York  producer,  very  many  other  producers  will  be  making 
from  less  than  a  reasonable  profit  to  a  positive  loss,  not  because 
they  have  not  the  cows,  nor  the  acres,  nor  the  shipping  facilities, 
but  because  of  a  lack  of  interest  or  the  application  of  business 
methods  to  their  dairying. 

For  a  determination  of  efficient  production  of  milk,  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  take  four  things  into  consideration,  first,  the  size 
and  character  of  the  farm  and  the  relative  number  of  cows  upon  it, 
second,  the  productivity  of  the  separate  cows,  third,  the  efficient  ad- 
ministration of  the  farm  and  the  amount  of  emphasis  placed  upon 
dairying  as  a  business,  fourth,  the  distance  of  the  farm  from  the 
creamery  or  shipping  station;  although  this  latter  point  will  be  con- 
sidered in  the  discussion  under  the  head  of  milk  delivery.  Com- 
pilations of  figures  which  fail  to  take  into  consideration  these  ele- 
ments may  be  interesting  and  valuable,  but  are  inconclusive.  The 
Wicks  Committee  found  after  months  of  investigation  that  the  aver- 
age production  of  New  York  State  was  between  4,000  to  4,500 
pounds,  or  from  1,882  quarts  to  2,118  quarts  per  year,  or  between 
5.2  and  6  quarts  per  day.  This  Committee  found  that  the  cost  of 
producing  4,695  pounds  was  $107.67,  5,886  pounds  was  $124.63, 
8,500  pounds  was  $150.75.  From  these  figures  it  is  plain  that  the 
cost  of  keeping  cows  does  not  vary  proportionately  according  to 
the  amount  of  their  production.  In  table  number  2  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  best  cow,  which  gave  more  than  six 
times  the  amount  of  milk  of  the  poorest  cow,  was  only  28c  per  day, 
while  that  of  the  poorest  cow  was  21c.  So  that  the  argument  is  ir- 
refutable, that  it  will  pay  the  farmers  of  New  York  State  to  seek, 
acquire  and  breed  better  production  stock. 

Now  what  is  to  be  done  in  the  matter?  The  reasonably  efficient 
dairyman  has  a  right  to  a  reasonable  profit  for  his  milk,  but  just  as 
the  inefficient  business  man,  no  matter  what  may  be  his  business  or 
where  he  may  be  found,  neither  makes  a  profit  nor  is  entitled  to 
make  a  profit,  so  a  price  should  not  be  demanded  for  milk  which 
will  assure  a  profit  to  the  inefficient  milk  producer,  especially  where 
the  burden  falls  on  the  innocent  consumer. 

But  efficient  production  is  entitled  to  a  profit  and  milk  is  en- 
titled to  the  price  rating  commensurate  with  its  value  as  a  food. 
This  means  that  both  the  production  and  the  price  must  be  right. 
Similarly  both  the  public  and  the  producer  are  entitled  to  the  most 

14 


efficient  distribution  organization  that  can  be  devised.  Production 
of  milk  is  a  great  and  honorable  business  in  itself  and  is  worthy  of 
the  undivided  and  best  efforts  of  any  man  who  engages  in  it.  What- 
ever the  method  of  distribution,  it  is  also  worthy  of  expert  and 
undivided  attention.  Since  both  production  and  distribution  are 
distinct  functions  of  the  milk  industry,  but  each  dependent  for  in- 
dustrial health  on  the  other,  the  maintenance  of  a  proper  division 
of  labor  based  upon  co-operation  and  fair  dealing  is  essential  to 
industrial  progress  and  the  public  service. 

Each  creamery  should  become  an  educational  dairy  center 
where  the  best  interests  of  the  producer,  distributor  and  consumer 
are  freely  discussed.  The  distributor,  as  the  business  agent  of  the 
industry,  should  initiate  and  encourage  co-operative  buying  on  the 
basis  not  of  profits  to  himself,  but  of  a  saving  to  his  patrons.  Cow 
testing  associations  should  be  provided  for  and  encouraged.  Quan- 
tity and  uniform  production  should  be  stimulated  by  premium  pay- 
ments added  to  the  market  price  and  every  effort  of  both  distributors 
and  producers  and  of  such  agencies  as  may  represent  the  public 
should  be  contributed  to  make  dairying  what  it  deserves  to  be,  the 
greatest,  most  interesting  and  most  profitable  of  our  food  industries. 
In  all  this,  work  well  done  should  have  the  support  and  plaudits 
of  the  press  and  all  other  public  agencies.  Every  regulatory  agent 
should  know  the  industry  from  the  bottom  up  and  be  dominated  in 
his  work  by  Ae  ideals  commensurate  with  the  dignity  of  his  task. 
Such  a  policy  is  possible  and  will  make  a  satisfied  and  prosperous 
producer,  a  happy  consumer  and  an  enthusiastic  distributor. 

CHAPTER  II. 
Inefficiency  in  the  Deuvery  of  the  New  York  Milk  Supply. 

In  contemplating  the  inefficiencies  of  the  milk  industry,  it  is 
generally  assumed  that  the  delivery  of  milk  in  New  York  City  is 
especially  subject  to  this  criticism;  in  fact  with  most  people  that  is 
about  as  far  as  the  considerations  of  inefficiency  in  the  industry  go. 
Practically  everybody  has  observed  a  number  of  milk  delivery 
wagons  on  his  residence  block  and  naturally  asks  himself  if  such 
duplicate  deliveries  are  not  inefficient.  The  writer  himself  has  heard 
it  said  several  times  that  there  were  seventeen  wagons  delivering 
milk  on  every  block  in  New  York  City,  although  the  basis  for  this 
conclusion  was  not  given.  Since  city  delivery  is  one  of  the  functions 
of  the  milk  dealer,  his  branch  of  the  industry  is  apt  to  bear  more 
than  its  share  of  the  popular  charges  of  inefficiency.  It  becomes, 
therefore,  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  inquire  just  what  inefficiencies 
exist  in  the  delivery  of  milk,  and  as  its  delivery  starts  from  the  cow 
and  ends  with  the  consumer,  our  study  will  begin  with  the  delivery 
of  milk  by  the  farmer  to  the  shipping  station  or  creamery  and  will 
end  with  its  receipt  by  the  consumer  in  New  York  City. 

15 


H 


Inasmuch  as  the  distance  of  the  fann  from  the  shipping  station 
is  a  factor  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  desirability  of 
the  farmer's  producing  plant,  it  might  be  equally  as  logical  to  con- 
sider country  delivery  as  a  production  or  first  cost  item.  But  while 
keeping  this  in  mind,  it  will  here  be  treated  as  part  of  milk  delivery. 
The  same  process  of  getting  the  facts  bearing  upon  country  de- 
livery was  used  as  in  obtaining  the  production  facts  in  table  three 
of  the  chapter  on  the  inefficiencies  of  production,  that  is,  the  actual 
facts  as  they  existed  on  the  day  of  inquiry  were  obtained  through 
questions  siibmitted  to  the  creamery  superintendents.  The  answers 
to  these  questions  are  certainly  very  interesting  and  are  tabulated 
in  table  6,  the  purpose  being  to  ascertain  the  relation  existing  be- 
tween the  amount  of  milk  delivered  to  the  creamery  and  the  number 
of  men,  wagons  and  horses  used  for  such  delivery. 

The  superintendents  were  also  asked  to  make  the  following  esti- 
mates: 

First,  if  the  Company  will  give  you  the  contract  for  bringing 
all  of  the  milk  delivered  to  your  creamery  within  tfie  hours  required 
for  properly  preparing  for  shipment,  how  many  horses,  wagons, 
trucks  or  automobile  trucks  in  detail  would  you  use?  Second,  if 
the  farmers  living  within  easy  access  to  one  another  would  co-operate 
in  bringing  their  milk  to  the  creamery,  how  many  groups  could  be 
economically  formed  and  how  many  wagons,  trucks,  etc.,  now  used 
could  be  displaced. 

While  a  few  of  the  superintendents  did  not  give  these  estimates, 
enough  responded  so  as  to  convince  one  that  much  may  be  done  to 
simplify  the  delivery  of  milk  by  the  farmer  to  the  creamery  and 
thereby  eliminate  some  of  the  original  cost  elements  which  the  con- 
sumer is  ultimately  required  to  pay. 

Before  examining  table  6  it  will  again  be  well  to  keep  in  mind 
that  the  writer  is  not  claiming  anything  more  for  these  tables  than 
appears  on  the  face  of  them.  This  table  gives  die  delivery  experi- 
ence accurately  and  positively  for  a  day  certain.  It  can  do  no 
more  than  show  a  tendency.  An  examination  of  the  matter  has 
shown  that  about  half  these  creameries  were  receiving  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  their  average  number  of  quarts  for  the  year.  Others 
were  below  and  still  others  above  the  average,  but  the  estimates 
made  by  the  superintendents  were  generally  on  the  basis  of  bringing 
to  the  creamery  throughout  the  year  the  milk  produced,  regardless 
of  amount.  ITie  number  of  patrons  in  any  event  remains  prac- 
tically fixed  while  the  organizer  of  a  co-operative  delivery  system 
would  be  more  concerned  with  the  number  of  stops  and  the  location 
of  the  various  groups  of  producers  than  with  the  amount  of  milk 
received. 


16 


TABLE  VI 


I 

1 


S  e  • 

9  ^  S  •• 

M  B  5  b 

£  1  sa        s^  l»      Sp        s      5^       s== 

it  o>  &  a  dSBuu 

I      17  681  48.6         48.6         35.8  14  19  1  2 

C   27  874  35.           35.  21.9  25  40  6  12 

R.  G.  ...  37  1,251  41.7         41.7  39.1  30  32  4  8 

S.  F.  . . .  28  1,391  58.           63.2  63.2  22  22  5  5 

L    56  1,464  146.4  146.4  104.6  10  14  8  8 

P. 22  1,549  103.  103.  82.  15  19  3  3 

S.  C 45  1,858  92.9  109.3  58.1  17  32  6  12 

E.  C  R..  45  1,904  112.  112.  59.5  17  32  20  20 

SoL  ....  32  2,069  86.2    86.2  51.7  24  40  4  8 

S.  Ch.  . .  31  2,443  84.     84.  66.  29  37  3  a-t 

B 42  2,507  109.  109.  80.9  23  31  2  2 

S.  0.  ...  39  2,684  149.  149.  116.7  18  23  4t  8 

B.  M.  ...  35  2,896  84.6         96.5  69.  30-34  42  4  8 

A 76  3,272  65.4    65.4    57.4  50  60  12  24 

S.  St....  55  3,361  120.  124.5    84.  28  40  7  14 

S.  Fr....  84  4,090  97.     97.  63.  42  65 

E.  W....  79  4,798  200.  200.  109.  24  44  3a-t  6 

S.  J 50  5,069  149.1  149.1    95.6  34  53  7  14 

E.  St....  109  5,199  162.4  173.4  148.5  30  35 

E.  H....  59  5,529  128.6  128.6    97.  43  57 

Shek.  ...  37  7,838  326.6  326.6  170.2  24  46  10  20 

S.  G.  C.  63  8,301  268.  268.  136.  31  61  3  6 

H 95  12,471  328.  337.  189.  38-37  66h.p.  5a-t 

S.  P 59  13,280  276.6  276.6  195.  48  68 

5.  T 73  14,332  311.6  311.6  181.  46  79  la-t  5 

There  are  some  very  interesting  observations  to  be  made  in  table 

6.  Take  for  instance  creamery  C,  the  second  on  the  list  where  874 
quarts  or  less  than  22  cans  were  received  on  the  day  in  question.  At 
a  well  organized  creamery,  20  cans  of  milk  are  often  received  from 
one  wagon  with  one  driver  and  two  horses;  yet  in  this  case,  22  cans 
required  25  men  and  40  horses.  Further  down  the  list,  it  will  be 
noted  that  creamy  "Shek,"  which  received  on  the  same  day  7,838 
quarts  of  milk,  more  than  nine  times  the  above  amount,  required  one 
less  man  and  only  six  more  horses  and  the  "Shek"  superintendent 
thinks  he  could  bring  in  this  same  quantity  of  milk  from  his  37  pro- 
ducers with  10  men  and  wagons  and  20  horses,  less  than  half  of  those 
actually  used.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  superintendent 
at  C  creamery  thinks  that  he  could  bring  in  the  milk  at  his  creamery 
with  6  men  and  wagons  and  12  horses,  thereby  eliminating  19  men 
and  28  horses. 

Take  the  case  of  A  creamery  about  half  way  down  the  list.  Here 
50  men  and  wagons  and  60  horses  were  used  to  bring  to  the  cream- 
ery that  which  the  superintendent  thinks  he  could  gather  up  and 
deliver  on  time  for  preparation  and  shipment  with  12  men  and 
wagons  and  24  horses,  thereby  saving  the  labor  of  38  men  and  36 

17 


horses.  Here  considerably  more  man  power  and  only  a  little  less 
horse  power  were  used  on  this  day  than  to  make  the  delivery  of 
12,471  quarts  at  creamery  H,  where  the  superintendent  believes  he 
could  gather  in  the  milk  with  five  auto  trucks.  Or  take  for  example 
the  case  of  Creamery  J,  the  first  creamery  on  the  list,  where  the 
superintendent  thinks  he  could  do  with  one  wagon  and  two  horses 
what  is  now  being  done  with  14  men  and  wagons  and  19  horses,  and 
similarly  creamery  B.  M.  just  above  creamery  A.  Take  the  case  of 
16  of  these  creameries  whose  superintendents  presented  estimates  of 
the  number  of  men,  horses  and  wagons  they  would  require  if  organ- 
izing  the  delivery  of  milk  to  their  respective  creameries  for  profit 
to  themselves  under  competitive  bidding.  Where  the  present  delivery 
requires  in  the  aggregate  398  men  and  wagons  and  583  horses,  their 
combined  reports  show  that  the  same  delivery  could  be  made  with 
102  men  and  wagons  and  166  horses,  thus  presenting  a  saving  of 
74%  in  men  and  wagons  and  71%  in  the  number  of  horses.  Or,  fig- 
uring on  the  basis  of  the  work  actually  being  done  on  the  superin- 
tendents' estimates,  the  delivery  of  the  producers'  milk  to  these 
creameries  now  requires  three  times  as  many  men  and  wagons  and 
two  and  a  half  times  as  many  horses  as  is  necessary.  Or,  for  specific 
information,  take  the  case  of  B.  M.  in  table  6.  Here  the  superin- 
tendent,  the  best  posted  expert  on  delivery  facts  in  his  community, 
estmiates  that  he  can  do  with  4  men  and  wagons  and  8  horses  what 
now  requires  seven  and  a  half  times  as  many  men  and  wagons  and 
five  and  a  half  times  as  many  horses  as  is  necessary. 


Creamrry 

S Mr.  B. 

S Mr.  B. 

jLj*   ivx»    •••••••■•  iTi.ir»  vf* 

Xfa     irJIit      ■••■•••••   ivj.]r«    jp  • 

x\»  vy«   •••••••«••  iTxr*    w • 

A Mr.  D. 

<*»«    •■••••■•••••■  ivXJr*  XV* 

A Mr.  T. 

T  Mr    M 

J Mr.  S. 

s  r  Mr  s 

Ch Mr.  B. 

P Mr.  T. 

P.  Mr.  W. 

P.  Mr.  G. 


TABLE 

VII 

B 
«   ■ 

s  g 

nmber  of 

•-    Ml 
O    « 

°  m 

if 

1 

Mf 

Quant 

t  X 

i  s 

e 

1 

z 

^  o 

m   S 

s 

... 

■  a 
U 

13.6 

2 

2 

24 

8 

23.5 

2 

2J^ 

23 

17 

8.4 

2 

1 

9 

5 

15.5 

1 

3 

9 

6 

8.9 

1 

3 

12 

12 

23.8 

2 

2/2 

10 

8 

11.2 

1 

3/2 

10 

10 

24  9 

1 

4 

11 

U 

49.4 

2 

3 

16 

9 

20.2 

2 

VA 

16 

6 

10.3 

2 

Wa 

12 

4 

188 

2 

Va 

16 

6 

62.3 

2 

2 

18 

16 

8.9 

2 

m 

3 

3 

56.4 

2 

2/2 

24 

17 

11.7 

1 

2/2 

25 

13 

18 


Table  number  7  contains  a  number  of  very  interesting  obser- 
vations on  individual  patrons  at  several  of  the  creameries.  The  first 
example  in  the  table  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  Mr.  B.  at  Creamery 
S,  who  maintains  24  cows  and  milked  8  of  them,  drove  two  miles 
with  two  horses  to  bring  29  quarts  of  milk  to  the  creamery,  and  sim- 
ilarly throughout  the  table. 

There  may  be  many  answers  to  the  implied  criticisms  of  in- 
efficiency contained  in  these  last  two  tables,  for  instance,  that  a 
market  must  be  found  for  a  small  amount  of  milk  as  well  as  a  large 
amount  or  that  men  and  horses  on  the  farm  especially  in  winter  time 
have  nothing  to  do  anyway.  But  there  is  no  charge  here  of  inef- 
ficiency against  all  dairymen  among  whom  are  many  splendid  busir 
ness  men.  The  point  that  is  desired  to  be  made  is  that  there  are 
entirely  too  many  instances  of  the  inefficient  use  of  the  time  of  both 
men  and  horses  to  justify  the  New  York  consumer  in  paying  a  price 
for  milk  which  contemplates  a  profit  based  upon  such  methods.  It 
would  seem  that  a  well  organized  farm  ought  to  be  able  to  employ 
both  its  men  and  its  horses  to  more  useful  purposes  even  in  the 
winter  time,  while  in  the  summer  there  is  no  question  about  it.  How- 
ever inefficient  the  city  delivery  system  may  be,  it  is  difficult  to  find 
more  glaring  instances  of  the  extravagant  use  of  men,  horses  and 
time  than  in  some  of  the  cases  above  cited. 

The  transportation  of  milk  from  the  creameries  to  the  city  ter- 
minals by  the  railroads  has  been  lately  investigated  with  great  care 
by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  for  the  purpose  of  fixing 
freight  rates  and,  although  inefficiencies  exist  therein,  as  for  example, 
in  the  case  of  less  than  carload  lots  of  milk,  this  matter  has  prac- 
tically been  settled  by  the  Conunission  and  it  will  not  now  be  par- 
ticularly profitable  to  discuss  it.  The  railroad  terminals  supplying 
New  York  City  are  more  or  less  fixed  and  while  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation of  milk  from  New  Jersey,  where  most  of  the  terminals 
center,  to  the  more  remote  plants  of  Brooklyn,  is  an  expensive  matter 
either  with  horses  and  trucks  or  automobile  trucks,  both  the  dealer 
and  producer  are  virtually  bound  by  the  situation  as  it  is  and  neither 
of  them  is  to  blame  for  any  inefficiencies  that  may  exist  in  this  part 
of  the  delivery  system.  ^ 

But  a  most  interesting  field  for  inquiry  is  the  matter  of  city  retail 
deliveries  and  our  discussion  will  here  be  limited  to  almost  alto- 
gether to  retail  milk  sold  in  bottles.  According  to  Department  of 
Health  figures,  the  average  number  of  quarts  of  milk  received  in 
New  York  City  for  the  month  of  November,  1917,  was  1,627,127. 
Of  this  amount  598,671  quarts  were  delivered  daily  from  retail 
wagons  in  bottles.  There  were  engaged  in  this  service  4,978  retail 
wagons  which  showed  a  distribution  from  each  of  121  quarts  ac- 
cording to  the  above  figures.  This  is  not  a  fair  average  of  the 
amount  of  milk  sold  on  these  wagons  and  if  it  were,  it  would  be 
entirely  indefensible.  The  capacity  load  under  favorable  conditions 
for  the  average  milk  wagon  is  about  432  quarts,  although  several 

19 


Mi 


of  the  routemen  claim  that  they  have  delivered  with  comparative 
ease  between  500  and  600  quarts  and  one  man  who  is  perhaps  too 
optimistic,  thinks  that  he  could  deliver  on  his  route  as  high  as  700 
points  including  quarters  of  cream.  It  would  be  very  easy  to  esti- 
mate the  number  of  wagons  required  to  make  a  New  York  City  milk 
delivery,  each  wagon  carrying  capacity  loads  and  to  fix  this  as  the 
standard  of  efficiency.  But  there  are  very  many  modifying  circum- 
stances which  a  careful  examination  of  the  matter  including  per- 
sonal conferences  with  many  route  drivers  in  various  sections  of  the 
city  have  brought  forth. 


I 

r*  1 

'I 


m 


20 


« 

n 

< 


■loioj  oi  aiao]]  ■ai]f 


ojtj  JO  aoj^ 


BinoH  oi 
MMfoQ  moij  eaasjsiQ 

XuAtjOQ  pao3»s  DO  aioioj 


ij9At\9Q  JMI J  Unoi]  -OJ^ 


(paivinpag)  ijoiuiax 


iiO}UJ9J, 

■I  ■aiasdui03  Jo  'ON 


MLMAipQ  jooij  jaddfi 


uamojinQ  jo  -oiti 


innuitnif^ 


J9AUQ  iq  oaAUQ  raiipi 


•in«^  ao  niiH  IMJlg 

•IMU  J-dni[I«J||^ -iO]  VA3[3 


I 


J 


'Ofi  a)no|] 


in 


m 


10 


CO 


10 


o 
10 


10 


in 


lA 


m 


in 


o 


e4 


1? 


2: 


in 
c4 


s 


o 


8 

>4 


e 
Z 

in 


in 


8 


o 


eO 


ei| 


o 


el 


in 
c4 


o 


in 

'"'Br 


in 

00 


in 


C<«:      t^ 


m       S 


"? 


8 


o 


in 


m 

00 

00 


^ 

m 

in 

in 

* 

m 

* 

^ 

in 

in 

in 

• 

00 

1-^ 

es' 

1/ 

a' 

in 

8 

S 

in 

in 

r-t 

^ 

^o 

t^in 

1—1 

gl'^ 

S2 

com 

m 


01 


00 


in 


en 


o 


o 


00 

o 


in 


00 


CI 


en 


«o 


o 
00 


o 
in 

CM 


o 


8 


ei 


o 

2: 


m 


in 


o 


in 
ci 


« 


« 


o 

o 
in 


e 
2; 


CO 


01 


QOC> 


00 

CO 

CN| 


^esi 


o 

in 

m 


mm 


00 


i 


o 
2: 


CI 


o 

CI 


en 


to 
in 
00 

CI 


o 


s 

s 


o 


«? 


CO 


00 


in 
ci 


i$ 


in 


eo 


«n 


CO 


g^ 


10      W  ^     fH  ^     i-l 


■n' 


8 

F-l 

00 

^ 

0 

<M 
CI 

J2 

^S§ 

CO  t^  Q 

0  to  0 

^ 

^ 


in 


ss 


^ 


Ch 


in 


VO 

i-H 

CI 


^ 


in 


in 

00 


N 


in 

CO 


o 

00 


On 


O 

CO 


s 


«n 


o 
in 


a 


in 


s 


04 


in 

l-H 

CI 


in 


iS 


in 


VO 


^ 


^ 


NO 


00 
0\ 


ss 


in 


8 


3 

** 

i-H 

CI 

VO 

in 


o 

CI 


o 


CI 


3 


00 


o\^ 


o 

2: 


in 


C4 


in 


S5 

CO 


OO"** 


in 


VO 


in 


o 

VO 


S5^ 


NO 


o 

CI 


s 


ClCId      dCSICv]      CI 


^SS    SS2^    000 
in  ON  On    o  o  in    vo  NO  10 

CI  CI  i-l      d  CI  i-(       CM  CI  r-i 


ON 


d 


S 


in 


00 

06 


CI 


00 


w? 


Ol 


00 


in 
in 


OQ 


CO 


00 
CO 


CO 


CO 


m 


m 


en 


00 


in 


00 


00 


in        f- 


in 


CI 


00 

ci 


CI 


CI 


VO 


00 


^ 


^     td^bi  u^'b  M^u:  u^'e>;  m^c^  u^t.;     ^u:  w^e>;     ^        ^ 


^[<^     REX4' 


*-  a 

©CI 

>^    O 

08  «-• 


OS 


o 

0-3 

pi's 


u^ 


m  -S3 

o  « 
ON -5 


US 


> 
CI  *' 

'J 

i-tm 


CI 


I 

.205 

'2JS 
c  *-• 

•-'  i: 

©^ 

U2: 

o  q 

■si 

GO'S 

l-H  1/5 


cJ§ 


g 

> 

•  mt 

•> 

Oi 

03 

CO 

-0 

U 

c 

CI 

2 

NO 

0 

tJ 

<J 

c 

JS 

CJ 

*^ 

00  m 

o 
r  ** 

•ocu 

o  > 


J 

• 
in  «£ 

NO      . 

mm 


cd 

CO    ID 

o  *i 

*       » 


■gz 

*;J  t— t 


»4 

Is 

Sz 


.2  fi 
c  S 

ttj  ed 


cJ^      O?      u;:!      bir. 


f.3S 


u^ 


r  c  ^ 

4)    g    0) 

6  (A  Cd 
en   tH 
zi  0  o 

O      &■  4-> 


M  m 


J4 

O    «3 

c  o 


"C  2 

*^  g 
2q 

cd  «-• 

TS  cd 
edie 
P  o 


o2 

B     4-> 

a;)    4) 


sj     cS:s     oj 


u^ 


M 


Mi 


^  a 

o  o 

m  :u 
•-1OQ 


m 

Njt-» 


r  cd 

CO     ^ 

CO  03 
B  *■> 

■"•   ed 
0-0 

SI 


CI 


en  S 

CO     4J 

On    cfi 


00  «-• 

oom 


CI 

u:5 


cn  is 

°°  o 

o  *' 

00(4 


ON 


is 

^2 
in_2 

rH  "^ 

4-1      C 

-^  £ 


.  JCO 


«    > 

cn« 

-^  o 

B  *- 

'^  ed 
O  ^ 

ON« 


u3 


«  S 

S2 
2« 

J3< 

*-> 

f-H     4-1 

rnm 


CO 

02 


«.2 


CD    C 
Ov    O 


O  9i 
-13  •< 
CO-O 
r- J  CO 


O 

CJci 


in 


in 


o 
o 
m 


o 


in 

t6 


o 
I— I 
m 

cT 


C|rJ« 


m 


s 


8 


SS    SSS     12i5S    v*y2JS    i2l2i'?    22s    K3H2^2     000000    000000    NOvovo    ooo    ooo    "«tTtQ    000    000    mmm    000    000    00 
^^    ?S£ii2     i22f2     iSSs     ^^?l:     SSTSS    ^nono     t-t^r-    onoson    onct*on    inxnxn    oni-hvo     p-h  pi  S     0000    cic^^    oQeo     ^■^a^    ononvo    r^o 

^CO   CICO<-"    .-Hi-Hi-t   ^i-Hr-l   i-Hf-lr-l   CM  CI  CS   i-H  p-i  rH   ,-x  rH  l-H   l-H  ,-H  f-H   i-H  ^H  r-l   CM  CM  i-H   ,-(  d  r-l   CJ  CS|(M   CM  CO  l-H   CO  CO  i-H   ^  ^  r-H   rH  .-^  rH   S  S  r^H   CM  CO 


CI 


b    W^fa    txj^fa     W^fe     W^fa    W^fo    W^'fe         ^         W^'fe*     w^ 


ID 

-  a 

C/3  rQ 

4) 

*-  c 
•O  o 

CO  § 
VO  -2 


Ud 


o 
m 

CI 


00 


o 


in 


in 


S'* 


m 


o 
00 


3 


^ 


(X,  m 

§« 

u  o 
0)   o 

.8 

CJCI 


B 


m 


in 


o 


o 


o 


in 


iq 

CI 


m 


in 


tiO 


e 


in 

06 


in 

ci 

m 


o 


o 


m 

CI 


CI 


en 
o 

CI 


8       s 


o 


o 


O' 


o 

CO 
CO 

«o 


ct 


^ci 


00 


enoo        1^1 


Ok  in 


in 


o 

m 


S 


|/3 


A 


Q 


*§2 


S§S    S^S^S?    299    SS9    SS«    *a9S 

CO  NO  CO       CO  CO  CO       rH  lO  O        CO  CO  tfi        O  ^'  O        '^  K  'B 
CICICM      CMCMCI      CMCMCM      CI  CI  rn      «  r- «      m  !Z  S 


«n 


VO 


in 


M  (>4 


Wbk        WU4        ^bl        W'tii 


Sc< 


Cd  ci 


C   «^   ff 

S    "  S 

t>^      E 


o 
r  I'n 
Met 


^     ri 

"3  o 
2j 

«  o 

haw     ""^ 

ct; 
OW 


wi 


■2S 

o  •* 


■5  CO 

mm 


o 

r  1=^ 

Ui-H 


p;  CO 

Qbi 

o  o 

«    . 


MS 


ti5  S 

*      r-* 

2  e 
Z  cn^ 


•  y% 


•jf  al 

3eSr 
O'  S 

Ooi 


vO 


i 


hi 

I  ■  I 


Table  8  is  prepared  from  notes  taken  at  these  conferences  in 
the  month  of  December,  1917.  Many  of  the  milk  companies  con- 
solidated about  this  time,  but  this  table  shows  the  situation  very  much 
as  it  had  existed  for  several  years  past  and  before  the  routes  of  the 
consolidating  companies  were  merged  with  one  another  as  could  have 
been  done  where  duplicate  routes  existed. 

There  are  many  things  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
delivery  of  milk.  Among  these  are  the  character  of  the  houses  in  the 
neighborhood  in  which  the  delivery  is  made  and  the  number  of 
quarts  each  customer  takes;  for  instance,  it  is  one  thing  to  make  de- 
liveries to  some  of  the  houses  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  section  where  from 
30  to  50  quarts  are  often  delivered  to  one  customer  and  where  extra 
quart  customers  are  the  rule  and  quite  another  thing  to  deliver  in 
some  sections  of  the  East  Side  where  the  customers  take  a  small 
amount  of  milk  and  most  of  the  houses  are  without  elevators,  re- 
quiring the  driver  in  many  instances  to  climb  five  flights  of  steps 
in  order  to  serve  a  single  customer  with  one  quart  or  even  a  pint  of 
milk.  It  is  still  different  in  the  sections  where  detached  houses 
prevail. 

Again  some  routes  are  concentrated  more  than  others.  Many  of 
those  of  the  big  companies  cover  but  a  few  city  blocks,  while  most  of 
the  routes  of  the  smaller  companies  are  large  in  extent,  one  route,  as 
will  be  seen  in  the  table,  covering  more  than  13  street  miles.  It  will 
readily  be  seen  that  with  large  customers  and  concentrated  routes 
anything  but  a  capacity  load  is  an  evidence  of  inefficiency  in  the  de- 
livery system,  while  in  the  outlying  territory  of  Brooklyn  and  Queens 
such  a  route  does  not  obtain  even  where  the  greatest  efficiency  is 
practiced.  Table  8,  therefore,  endeavors  to  picture  the  situation  with 
reference  to  the  character  of  the  houses,  the  extent  of  the  routes,  the 
amount  of  milk  delivered  on  each,  at  the  time  the  data  was  gathered, 
and  estimates  of  the  maximum  and  minimum  deliveries  on  the  route, 
the  number  of  companies  operating  in  the  territory  in  question,  the 
number  of  duplicate  delivery  wagons  on  each  block,  the  number  of 
upper  floor  deliveries,  the  length  of  time  for  the  first  delivery  and 
the  number  of  points  on  the  second  delivery.  It  will  be  seen  that  in 
no  case  were  there  17  delivery  wagons  on  any  block  and  probably 
tfiere  never  was  such  a  number.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious 
that  from  4  to  10  wagons  on  each  block  is  not  economical. 

To  contemplate  a  really  efficient  delivery  system,  capacity  loads 
so  far  as  they  are  consistent  with  reasonable  hours  and  the  physical 
ability  of  the  driver  to  perform  the  work  of  delivery  and  to  make 
his  collections  would  seem  to  be  the  starting  point.  By  a  capacity 
load  is  here  meant  as  many  quarts  of  milk  as  can  be  loaded  and 
carried  with  safety  on  an  ordinary  retail  milk  wagon.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  ascertain  how  the  different  localities,  character  of  the 
houses,  size  of  customers  and  concentration  of  population  both  in 
the  city  and  on  each  route  would  affect  capacity  loads,  the  following 
questions  were  asked  and  answered  by  each  one  of  the  drivers  inter- 

22 


I 


viewed      (1)   If  you  had  the  contract  at  a  fair  compensation  per 
quart  for  delivering  all  the  milk  in  the  best  part  of  your  present 
territory,  no  other  milk  company  delivering  there,  (a)   how  many 
quarts  would  you  take  out  per  wagon,  (b)  how  long  would  it  take 
?ou  to  make  the  delivery?     (2)  If  you  had  a  contract  for  dehvermg 
all  the  milk  on  the  worst  part  of  your  territory,   (a)   how  many 
quarts  would  you  take  out  per  wagon,  (b)  how  long  would  it  take 
you  to  make  the  delivery?    The  answers  to  these  questions  are  very 
interesting  and  the  best  opinion  on  the  subj^t  m  the  city,  namely 
ihat  of  thi  milk  drivers  themselves,  is  reflected  m  the  table.    As  will 
be  seen  in  estimating  the  situation  on  the  maximum  routes  there  axe 
very  few  drivers  who  would  not  take  out  a  capacity  load.    On  the 
minimum  routes,  reflecting  the  very  worst  delivery  conditions  most 
of  the  drivers  would  take  out  loads  which  are  considerably  larger 
than  the  actual  amount  taken  out  when  the  table  was  compiled,  or 
in  fact  taken  out  when  their  routes  were  at  Uieir  best. 

The  views  of  the  drivers  on  the  daylight  delivery  system  ^^^^ 
illuminating  as  bearing  upon  that  proposed  reform      ^i  the  6Z 
drivers  questioned  on  the  matter,  11  were  m  favor  of  daylight  de- 
liveries  and  21  opposed  to  it.    Most  of  those  favoring  such  delivery 
were  drivers  on  routes  where  traffic  conditions  were  not  congest^. 
The  majority  of  those  who  opposed  the  idea  did  so  on  the  grounds, 
first,  that  in  the  day  time  traffic  conditions  were  against  it;  second, 
that  drivers  could  not  obtain  the  use  of  the  elevators;  third,  that  it 
would  subject  them  to  the  necessity  of  listening  to  conaplamts  and  en- 
tering  into  conversations  with  customers  which  would  take  a  great 
deal  of  their  time.    Most  of  the  drivers  opposed  the  second  deliveries 
as  wasteful  of  time  and  labor.    These  second  deliveries  are  of  two 
kinds,  where  the  driver  makes  a  second  delivery  from  the  company 
delivery  depot  or  where  he  makes  a  return  call  during  the  course  of 
his  original  delivery.    There  is  no  question  but  what  habit  enters 
largely  into  the  demand  which  causes  this  particular  type  of  m- 

efficiency^^^^  question  the  city  delivery  of  milk  is  a  great  field  for 
saving  in  time  and  labor  of  both  m«i  and  hors^.  If  a  milk  com- 
pany  would  deliver  100,000  quarts  of  milk  per  day  witii  a  few  l^s 
quarts  on  each  route  wagon  than  would  pay  for  the  labor  of  the 
driver,  the  maintenance  of  the  horse  and  the  up-keep  of  the  equip- 
ment, that  company  could  not  survive  and  would  obvioi^ly  be  in  a 
worse  financial  position  than  a  company  with  a  few  well  organized 
routes  whose  deliveries  approached  the  capacity  of  each  wagon. 

It  should  need  no  argument  to  convince  one  that  a  great  number 
of  small  companies  duplicating  one  another's  territory  cannot  oper- 
ate a  New  York  milk  delivery  efficiently  and  that  a  few  large  com- 
nanies  would  serve  the  consumer  much  more  economically  providing 
5ic  customer  could  get  a  portion  of  the  benefit  of  the  savings  made 
by  such  concentration  of  the  delivery  system.  Here,  then,  if  at  any 
place,  is  where  an  intelligent  supervising  public  authority  could  do 

23 


I  '  ^ 


a  splendid  work  by  aiding,  after  a  thorough  study  of  the  matter,  in 
re-districting  the  city  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  helpful  both  to  the  milk 
companies  and  to  the  public. 

In  the  city  of  Philadelphia  a  few  years  ago,  milk  was  selling 
at  8c  per  quart,  while  in  New  York  it  was  selling  at  9c  per  quart. 
The  Philadelphia  milk  companies  in  every  way  showed  as  high  a 
degree  of  prosperity  as  those  of  the  New  York  companies  and  yet 
the  original  cost  of  the  milk  was  about  the  same.  The  writer  sur- 
veyed the  Philadelphia  delivery  situation  and  found  that  most  of  the 
larger  companies  were  operating  in  distinct  sections  of  the  city, 
where  outside  of  a  little  competition  from  a  few  smaller  companies, 
they  were  in  a  position  to  organize  the  delivery  on  a  very  efficient 
basis.  The  result  was  that  their  routes  were  larger  than  the  New 
York  routes  and  even  at  the  lower  price  charged  the  consumer,  an 
equal  or  even  greater  amount  of  profit  was  realized  per  wagon. 

Greater  New  York  would  probably  present  greater  problems  in 
the  matter  of  establishing  delivery  districts  than  would  Philadelphia. 
At  the  moment  the  attitude  of  many  of  the  organized  milk  drivers 
is  against  large  loads  so  that  the  New  York  dealers  cannot  be  charged 
with  entire  responsibility  for  small  loads.  Suggestions  have  been 
made  from  time  to  time  that  the  problem  could  be  solved  by  con- 
tract deliveries,  but  these  are  clearly  impracticable  while  the  milk 
companies  are  privately  owned  because  there  could  be  no  way  of  pr(^ 
serving  the  individual  character  of  the  companies  and  protecting 
their  individual  rights  under  such  a  system.  On  the  other  hand  the 
greatest  argument  for  municipal  ownership  lies  in  the  unrestricted 
efficiencies  that  could  be  introduced  into  city  deliveries.  If  such 
ownership  for  delivery  purposes  could  be  assumed  without  incur- 
ring very  grave  and  tremendous  responsibilities  in  other  respects,  a 
good  organizer  could  undoubtedly  do  wonders  in  introducing  effi- 
ciencies into  the  deliveries.  But  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  con- 
cerned, public  ownership  would  be  advised  only  as  a  last  resort 
when  every  other  means  of  intelligent  co-operation  between  the 
public  and  the  distributors  had  failed. 

CHAPTER  III. 
Inefficiencies  in  the  Control  of  the  New  York  Milk  Supply. 
The  control  to  be  discussed  in  this  chapter  is  sanitary  control, 
that  is,  the  check  which  is  brought  from  some  outside  agency  upon 
one  or  more  of  the  phases  of  the  milk  industry  and  intended  to  im- 
prove the  character  of  the  milk  supply  in  its  health  and  food  value. 
This  restraint  may  have  its  origin  in  the  Federal,  State  and  Municipal 
governments,  or  the  control  may  be  of  a  private  nature,  as  where  the 
milk  dealer  on  his  own  initiative  seeks  to  obtain  a  better  and  richer 
milk  by  making  it  worth  the  farmers'  while  to  produce  it.  So  far  as 
the  New  York  City  milk  supply  is  concerned,  national  and  state  gov- 
ernments have  exercised  but  a  slight  control,  leaving  this  field  almost 
entirely  to  the  municipality. 

24 


The  sanitary  control  of  the  milk  supply  has  become  one  of  the 
most  important  functions  of  the  New  York  City  Board  of  Health 
operating  largely  through  its  Bureau  of  Food  and  Drugs.  No  func- 
tion of  the  Health  Department  has  been  performed  with  more  com- 
mendable zeal  and  with  better  results  than  its  work  of  sanitary  milk 
control.  It  has  not  always  been  wise  in  the  methods  it  has  pursued, 
but  this  is  said  in  the  spirit  purely  of  constructive  criticism.  The 
Federal  Government,  which  has  no  power  in  the  matter  except  as 
milk  may  cross  state  lines,  has  confined  itself  to  certain  general  in- 
vestigations of  an  educational  nature  and  New  York  State  has  largely 
devoted  its  activities  to  the  control  of  the  milk  supply  tributary  to 
the  other  cities  of  the  state.  • 

With  the  efficiency  that  has  been  manifested  by  the  New  York 
Department  of  Health,  it  is  just  as  well  for  the  New  York  consumer 
that  these  other  agencies  have  left  the  matter  largely  to  the  munic- 
ipality because  where  there  is  a  conflict  of  authority  and  inspec- 
tions, as  has  sometimes  been  the  case  even  with  the  slight  activity  of 
the  state  department  in  the  New  York  City  territory,  the  producer  is 
apt  to  become  confused  and  to  lose  his  respect  for  such  control  as  is 
imposed  upon  him,  especially  where  inspections  have  not  been  im- 
mediately followed  up.     Besides  each  controlling  agency  has  its 
own  standards  and  the  personal  equation  is  apt  to  vary  considerably. 
The  greatest  step  forward  in  the  sanitary  control  of  the  New 
York  milk  supply  was  that  of  dividing  the  milk  into  the  several 
grades,  grade  A,  grade  B,  and  grade  C.    This  did  not  necessarily 
mean  that  all  the  milk  of  any  one  of  these  grades  was  of  that  grade. 
In  fact,  much  of  the  grade  B  milk  could  measure  up  to  the  grade  A 
standard  and  even  some  of  the  grade  C  milk  might  be  of  the  higher 
grades,  but  the  grading  of  milk  did  impose  certain  sanitary  requi- 
sites which  were  valuable    in    order    properly  to    define  sanitary 
methods.     Another  sanitary  measure  of  almost  equal  importance 
was  the  requirement  that  practically  all  of  the  milk  supply  of  New 
York  City  should  be  pasteurized,  only  the  certified  milk  and  a  very 
small  portion  of  the  A  grade  being  exempt.     It  may  possibly  be 
questioned  if  pasteurized  milk  is  as  valuable  in  every  respect  as  high 
grade  raw  milk,  but  in  a  city  the  size  of  New  York,  requiring  such 
a  vast  supply  of  milk  and  where  so  many  lives  are  dependent  upon 
the  elimination  of  the  primary  causes  of  disease,  general  pasteuriza- 
tion  is  the  only  safe  and  practical  theory. 

The  Board  of  Health  has  in  the  past  exercised  its  control 
through  the  use  of  inspectors,  both  city  and  country,  and  by  the  em- 
ployment of  its  laboratories  located  in  the  city.  Regulations  have 
been  adopted  for  controlling  the  milk  supply  and  those  engaged  m 
its  production  and  distribution,  and  score  cards  prepared  for  grad- 
ing the  barns  and  the  methods  used  on  the  farm,  also  for  the  country 
and  city  creameries,  while  a  form  of  report  was  used  for  obtaining 
a  knowledge  of  the  sanitary  condition  of  places  in  the  city  where 
milk  was  sold. 

25 


In  general,  Board  of  Health  control  worked,  largely  because 
the  Department  could  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  dealers  by 
excluding  their  milk  from  the  city  if  it  did  not  meet  its  require- 
ments,  thus  placing  the  responsibility  on  the  dealers  to  bring  the 
producers  into  line  as  well  as  themselves.    This  principle  of  shifting 
the  responsibility  of  control  to  the  dealers,  while  eflPective  for  the 
time  being,  is  subject  to  considerable  criticism;  first,  because  it  tends 
to  do  just  what  should  not  be  done,  that  is,  antagonize  two  of  the 
branches  of  the  industry;  second,  because  it  is  unfair  to  the  dealer 
to  hold  him  entirely  responsible  for  that  which  may  be  beyond  his 
control;  and  third,  because  such  a  system  of  public  control  falls 
with  the  break  down  for  any  reason,  in  the  control  of  the  dealer, 
J  or  instance,  since  the  producers  through  their  organization  struck 
for  a  higher  price  for  their  milk  and  were  successful,  the  main 
anxiety  exhibited  by  both  the  Department  of  Health  and  the  dealers 
was  for  milk      Price  has  become  a  controlling  factor.     It  may 
well  be  doubted  whether  the  same  grip  is  maintained  on  the  methods 
01  production  on  the  farm  today  as  before  the  first  strike  started 

In  general,  the  control  of  the  Department  of  Health  has  been 
criticized  m  the  following  respects.  To  begin  with,  the  farmers 
have  objected  to  it  because  of  the  alleged  youth,  inexperience  and 
mcompetOTcy  of  some  of  the  inspectors.    It  is  hard  to  tell  just  how 
far  this  charge  is  true  and  how  far  the  Board  of  Health  can  be  held 
responsible  for  it.    A  man  well  posted  in  sanitary  matters,  may  not 
have  had  the  privilege  of  being  born  and  raised  on  a  farm  and  in 
consequence  thereof  is  liable  to  occasional  mistakes  of  a  practical 
nature.    When  th^  occur  it  is  very  damaging  to  his  prestige.  Again 
the  farmers  complain  that  all  the  inspectors  who  visit  them  do  not 
conform  to  the  same  standards  of  scoring  and  instruction.     When 
changes  are  made  in  the  personnel  of  the  inspectors,  variations  in 
judgment  are  of  course  likely  to  occur.    Without  question,  however, 
occasional  changes  are  not  only  necessary,  but  tend  to  promote  ef- 
ficiency m  the  inspection  system.    Many  farmers  also  have  learned 
to  appraise  lightly  the  follow  up  methods  of  the  department's  in- 
specters.    This  deficiency  is  probably  due  to  an  insuflficient  number 
of  mspectors  operating  under  the  present  system  and  deserves  con- 
sideration. 

There  are  several  criticisms  that  may  be  noted,  however,  which 
do  not  originate  with  the  producers,  but  have  to  do  more  with  the 
efficiency  of  the  system  in  general.  First,  the  hours  used  for  inspec- 
tion on  the  farms  are  usually  those  between  milkings,  which  means 
that  seldom  if  ever,  are  the  inspectors  present  when  the  methods  of 
the  producers  may  be  actually  observed.  As  clean  milk  is  due 
largely  to  the  use  of  proper  methods  on  the  farm,  the  lack  of  direct 
observation  here  is  hurtful.  The  inspectors'  work  is  a  special  work 
and  should  be  done  at  times  when  the  opportunity  is  given  for  com- 
plete  observation  of  everything  pertaining  to  the  purposes  of  the 
inspection.  '^    ^ 


26 


Another  criticism  is  that  of  a  lack  of  intensive  inspections.    By 
this  is  meant  a  type  of  inspection  that  goes  to  the  bottom  of  the  sit- 
uation in  some  locality  or  particular  as  where  the  same  milk  is  fol- 
lowed from  the  cow  to  the  consumer,  comparing  the  methods  used  in 
the  various  stages  of  the  milk's  progress  to  the  consumer,  with  the 
increase  in  bacteria  count  at  each  stage  as  it  is  handled.     By  pro- 
viding for  more  thoroughgoing  work  of  this  kind,  many  real  con- 
tributions may  be  made  to  sanitary  milk  control.    Third,  the  lack 
of  proper  follow  up  methods  on  the  farm  is  a  real  criticism  which 
should  be  met  by  doing  as  much  work  along  this  line  as  is  possible 
and  without  any  previous  notice  of  any  kind,  thus  at  least  creating 
the  apprehension  in  the  producer's  mind  that  another  immediate  m- 
spection  may  be  on  the  way.    The  follow  up  work  at  the  country 
creameries  has  generally  been  very  good  and  the  results  have  been 
in  proportion,  but  the  creameries  are  more  accessible  and  the  work 
requires  fewer  men.    Fourth,  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  charac- 
ter of  the  inspections.    This  criticism  should  be  met  by  standardizing 
the  methods  of  inspection  and  the  values  on  the  score  cards.    This 
will  promote  the  effectiveness  of  the  inspections  and  will  add  to  the 
constructive  character  of  the  work  done  by  enabling  valuable  com- 
parisons  to  be  made  between  results  obtained  in  various  parts  of 
the  country.    Regularly  held  conventions  of  inspectors  will  also  tend 
to  stimulate  more  uniform  and  thorough  inspections. 

The  above  criticisms  have  been  directed  at  the  inspection  sys^ 
tern,  but  there  is  another  method  of  control  used  by  the  Board  of 
Health,  that  of  the  laboratory.  The  present  method  of  employing 
the  laboratory  consists  of  testing  for  bacteria  and  butter  fat  m  the 
city  laboratories  on  samples  taken  both  in  the  city  and  country.  The 
number  of  bacteria  m  the  milk,  as  found  by  the  laboratory  tests, 
indicates  its  cleanliness  and  the  amount  of  butter  fat,  its  richness. 
There  is  no  particular  difficulty  in  testing  for  butter  fat  m  the  city 
laboratories,  but  trouble  has  been  experienced  in  getting  correct 
results  in  testing  for  bacteria,  samples  of  milk  taken  in  the  country, 
not  because  the  means  are  not  at  hand  for  properly  refrigerating 
the  samples  of  milk  taken  for  analysis,  but  on  account  of  dirty 
pipettes  and  sample  bottles  and  in  certain  cases  improper  care  being 
taken  of  the  samples  in  transit  so  that  the  results  do  not  speak  the 
truth.    Much  irreparable  damage  may  thus  be  done. 


I 


27 


TABLE  IX 


Department  Count 
1. 

2,000 
15,000 
4,500 
1,600 
8,000 
3,500 


Official  Unofficial 

Company  Count  Company  Laboratory  Count 
tarmcTs   Cans  at  Creamery  Tested  Milk 

1.700  3^00 

27,000  10,300 

1.200  3,800 

1300  2,900 

6^00  3,500 

4,200  3,300 


5,600  Av. 


7,133  Av. 


2.    Receiving  Vat  at  Creamery  Tested  Milk 

7,200  9,800 

8,200  10,200 

7,500  11,700 

10,100  9,300 

10,500  11,000 

8,700  10,600 

9,000  8,100 

9,700  9,200 

5,400  6,200 

7300  5,000 

7,000  6,500 

7300  8,300 


4»500Av. 


8,800 
8,700 
9,700 
12,000 
3,400 
6,100 
5,200 
4,400 
4,700 
4,100 
3,600 
4,300 


8,200  At. 


8,742  Av. 


6,500  Av. 


3.    Bottles  for  Shipment  at  Creamery  Gr.  A  Raw 

g'500  6,700  10,800 

9300  8,000  12900 

9,000  11,900  11800 

8,000  16,700  14.400 

2'5S  f'iSS  ^'400 

"^.200  1,000  4,500 

9.700  8,900  6,200 

5.600  5,900  3,700 

8.700  7,600  9100 

8,700  8,600  7,500 

9300  9,700  11800 

9.000  9,600  8,i55 


7,925  Av. 


130 
4,500 
5,000 
2,200 
1,400 
1,200 
58,500 
14,000 
1,000 
1,700 


8,309  Av. 

Farmers*  Cans  at  Creamery  (Untested) 

1,400 

4,800 

4,100 

1,500 

1,600 

1,000 

53,200 

14,900 

800 

1,700 


8,766  Av. 


3,500 

4,600 

3,800 

1,900 

1300 

900 

56,000 

18,400 

1,200 

1,300 


9.070  Av. 


8,500  Av. 
28 


9,290  Av. 


Official 


Unofficial 

Department  Count  Company  Count  Company  Laboratory  Count 

5.    Receiving  Vat  at  Creamery  {Untested) 

40.000  39,100  39,800 

30,000  37,800  32,700 

nr'AAA  9,200  35,000 

57'000  39600  32,000 

25000  28300  14,700 

30;r  4i;i00  12,900 

22000  23,000  18,300 

^m  29000  38,700 

Um  12600  9,200 

io;665  10,200  10,000 

18,000  8,400  3,700 

12;000  10,000  4,400 


25,783  Av. 

5,200 
3300 
2,000 
1,300 
5,000 
9,500 


4,416  Av. 

400 
2,000 
UOO 

900 
1,500 
4,000 


1,667  Av. 

1,300 
2,000 

800 

800 
4,000 
1,500 


6. 


24,175  Av. 

Outlet  Heater  at  Creamery 

4,400 
2300 
1,000 
800 
2,800 
5,600 


7. 


2334  Av. 
Outlet  Holder  at  Creiunery 

5,000 
1,400 
400 
1,000 
1,700 
5,900 


8.    Outlet 


2,500  Av. 

Cooler  at  Creamery 

1,500 

2,000 

400 

400 

11,600 

4,000 


20,950  Av. 

3,500 
7,200 
1,900 
1,500 
1,500 
1,100 


2,783  Av. 

600 
900 
200 
400 
600 
400 


517  Av. 

1,400 
1,200 

700 

300 
2,500 
3,600 


1,734  Av.  3,316  Av. 

9.    Bottle  for  Shipment  at  Creamery  Gr. 

800  1.200 

3,500  1.200 

6,000  1,200 

1,200  300 

1,400  600 

900  600 

400  600 

600  500 

3,500  1,400 

3,500  800 

2,500  1,800 

2,000  2,000 


A  Past. 


1,618  Av. 

2300 
1,900 

700 
5300 

900 

400 

500 

200 
1,900 
2,200 
3,000 
1,900 


2,191  Av. 


1,018  Av. 
29 


1,800  Av. 


i""^ 


vi  J, 


I 


Official 


Unofficial 


Department  Count 

G>mpany  Count 

Company  Laboratory  C 

10.    Grade  A  Raw 

at  Hoboken  in  Bottles,  same  as  3 

9,100 

6,100 

7,000 

17,100 

15,200 

11,700 

16,500 

26,800 

23,700 

10,000 

20,300 

8,500 

4,500 

5,900 

9,800 

5,000 

4300 

2,400 

7,500 

5,000 

10,600  B 

9,000 

7,300 

9,100 

10,000 

8,400 

10300 

7,100 

6300 

9,300 

8,800 

8,200 

9,000 

9300 

9,400 

9,100 

9,498  Av. 

10,334  Av. 

10,042  Av. 

11.    Grade  A  Past. 

at  Hoboken  in  Bottles,  same 

as  9 

1,500 

12,700 

300 

11,500 

2,500 

3,000 

1,500 

12,700 

1,200 

1,000 

400 

500 

600 

400 

100 

1,000 

2,200 

1300 

1,700 

1,400 

2,200 

1,200 

2,200 

2,400 
4,092  Av. 

1367  Av. 

12.    Various  Cases  Grade  Raw  at  Hohoken 

9,500 

7,500 

11,500 

9,700 

8,900 

15,200 

9300 

9,600 

3,400 

8,700 

10,100 

11,900 

13,000 

14,400 

16,000 

11300 

16,500 

20,900 

11,000 

13,600 

17,000 

14,500 

19,200 

21,700 

12,400 

10,300 

16,000 

12,800 

17,400 

spr. 

12,700 

12.800 

15,500 

12,500 

18,600 

10,100 

11,492  Av. 

13,442  Av. 

14,017  Av. 

13.     Various  Cases  Grade  A  Past. 

at  Hoboken 

1,100 

1,400 

2,500 

900 

1,300 

5,700 

1,000 

1,400 

8,400 

1,000 

800 

2,500 

5,500 

200 

2,600 

500 

700 

1,800 

1,000 

700 

1,400 

123,000 

2,000 

3,600 

3,000 

1,500 

3,600 

3,300 

2,200 

1,800 

2,000 

2,400 

3,800 

700 

900 

5,000 

11,917  Av. 

1.292  Av. 

3,568  Av. 

30 

T<y.Tg:MHnyw^i«a|ggp«i 


'-'"F^i""'? 


II 


Official 

Unofficial 

tment  Count 

Company  Count 

Company  Laboratory  Count 

14.    Grade  A  Raw 

at  ^7th  Street  Station, 

same  as  3  and  10 

5,000 

9,900 

7,700 

5,000 

7,800 

9,000 

6,000 

11,600 

11,500 

9,000 

10,500 

7,200 

2300 

6,800 

7,300 

2,000 

5,900 

5,000 

3,500 

4300 

7,700  B. 

2,500 

5,500 

6,400 

7,000 

8,500 

13,500 

6,700 

6,600 

11,300 

9,500 

11,900 

8,700 

11,000 

10,100 

spr. 

5,792  Av. 

8,384  Av. 

8,664  Av. 

15.    Grade  A  Past. 

at  4i7th  Street  Station, 

same  as  9  and  11 

700 

800 

2,900 

600 

600 

1,900 

600 

800 

3,000 

2,000 

1,200 

2,200 

800 

500 

900 

600 

900 

1,100 

700 

800 

3,000  B. 

500 

500 

4,200 

3,500 

1,400 

7,000 

1,500 

1,500 

2,500 

2,500 

2,200 

5,800 

3,000 

1,600 

2,500 

1,418  Av. 

1,766  Av. 

3,084  Av. 

16. 

Grade  A  Past.  Various  Cases 

at  Station 

2,400 

1,800 

600 

1,000 

2,100 

9,700 

2,200 

3,000 

spr. 

2,500 

3,200 

spr. 

100 

500 

800 

1,300 

1,000 

1,700 

900 

600 

2,500 

200 

400 

1,100 

1300 

2,100 

3,600 

1,700 

1,400 

3,800 

2,500 

2,300 

spr. 

3,500 

2,000 

spr. 

1,675  Av.  1,292  Av.  2,975  Av. 

The  official  counts  designated  above  were  made  from  the  same  samples  in 
the  laboratory  of  the  Board  of  Health  in  New  York  City,  one  set  by  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Company,  the  other  by  a  representative  of  the  Health  Board. 
PracticaJly  all  of  the  unofficial  counts  were  made  in  the  country  laboratory  of 
the  milk  company  by  the  company  bacteriologist.  Those  of  the  unofficial 
counts  marked  "B"  at  the  side  were  made  in  the  city  laboratory  of  the  milk 
company. 

These  counts,  while  seeming  to  vary  somewhat  to  those  not  familiar  with 
bacteriology,  really  show  a  remarkable  similarity,  which  argues  strongly  for  the 
laboratory  test  as  an  index  of  the  cleanliness  of  milk  when  the  methods  are 
similar  and  when  carelessness  in  the  taking  and  transportation  of  the  samples 
is  guarded  against  or  eliminated  by  the  use  of  country  laboratories. 

31 


f a^agBj,-  •'^  :yr-?"r 


preceding 

'^c  ^UIbBH  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^  result  of  an  investigation  caused  by 
a  controversy  over  the  correctness  of  the  bacteria  test  of  samples 
taken  at  a  certain  New  York  country  creamery  and  is  most  interest- 
ing as  showing  the  reliability  of  the  laboratory  test  as  a  means  of 
ascertaining  the  number  of  bacteria  in  milk  and  of  the  probability 
of  reasonably  uniform  results  under  proper  conditions. 

The  Board  of  Health  had  made  the  charge  that  the  counts  at  a 
certain  Grade  A  creamery  were  very  high.  Inasmuch  as  the  same 
milk  which  tested  high  in  bacteria  in  the  Board  of  Health  labora- 
tories was  running  reasonably  low  in  the  country  laboratory  main- 
tained by  the  Company  which  owned  the  creamery,  it  became  plain 
either  that  the  methods  of  testing  in  use  at  the  country  creamery 
were  wrong  or  at  least  different  from  the  methods  used  in  the  labora- 
tories of  the  Board  of  Health,  or  that  the  samples  were  not  properly 
iced  and  preserved  in  their  shipment  to  the  city  laboratory.  Since 
their  country  laboratory  man  had  received  part  of  his  education  in 
the  Board  of  Health  laboratory,  the  natural  assumption  by  the  milk 
Company  was  that  the  Board  of  Health  counts  did  not  reflect  the 
true  situation. 

The  Department  of  Health  very  generously  acquiesced  in  a  joint 
investigation  in  which  duplicate  samples  should  be  taken  at  various 
stages  of  the  progress  of  the  milk  through  the  creamery,  in  its 
course  to  the  consumer  and  in  the  consumer's  hands,  under  the  joint 
supervision  of  both  the  Company  and  the  Board  of  Health.  It  was  also 
provided  that  the  official  testing  should  be  done  in  the  city  by  both  the 
city  and  company  bacteriologists  working  independently,  that  the 
results  should  be  checked  by  them,  and  that  every  phase  of  the  taking, 
icing,  transporting  and  testing  of  the  samples  should  be  most  care- 
fully done  and  checked  by  the  two  interests.  While  the  unofficial 
counts  in  the  Company's  laboratory,  as  shown  on  Table  9,  were  not 
provided  for  in  the  plan,  these  counts  were  made  with  the  same 
care  as  the  official  counts  in  order  that  the  Company  might  have  a 
further  check  on  the  official  investigation.  Thus  the  work  of  three 
laboratories  was  available  in  the  investigation.  There  was  a  re- 
markable uniformity  in  results,  no  wide  variations  appearing  in  the 
counts  of  any  of  the  four  laboratories  except  in  one  case  under  13 
where  a  sample  tested  123,000  by  the  department's  bacteriologist 
but  only  2,000  bacteria  by  the  Company's  representative  and  3,000 
in  the  Company's  unofficial  laboratory  test.  This  investigation  very 
conclusively  pointed  to  the  fact  that  laboratory  results  may  be  re- 
liably uniform  when  the  methods  and  standards  of  testing  are  the 
same  and  where  care  is  used  throughout  the  process,  and  certainly 
tended  to  confirm  the  Company's  contention  that  the  original  depart- 
ment samples  were  not  properly  cared  for  either  in  icing  or  in  their 
transportation. 

While  the  same  results  might  probably  be  obtained  wherever 
the  same  degree  of  care  is  used  as  in  the  above  investigation,  such 
care  is  not  to  be  expected  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  inspector's 

32 


d 


I 


work.  Therefore,  it  would  seem  that  if  the  Board  of  Health  would 
encourage  country  laboratories  by  making  it  worth  while  for  the 
companies  to  maintain  them,  many  propitious  results  might  be  ex- 
pected. As  has  been  seen,  it  would  eliminate  questions  that  might 
arise  by  reason  of  improper  icing  of  samples.  Unspeakable  hard- 
ship to  a  milk  company  which  is  not  in  a  position  to  protect  itself 
as  happily  in  the  case  of  the  one  in  our  illustration,  may  easily  grow 
out  of  such  carelessness.  By  approving  the  use  of  country  laborator- 
ies this  hardship  could  be  prevented.  If  the  Board  of  Health  would 
provide  to  a  certain  limited  extent  for  coaching  the  country  labora- 
tory men  in  the  Board  of  Health's  methods  of  testing,  a  wonderful 
means  of  exercising  supervisory  control  could  be  provided.  The 
work  of  these  laboratories  properly  supervised  would  be  practically 
sufficient  as  an  inspection  policy  for  such  companies  as  maintained 
them  and  would  also  be  an  incentive  for  other  companies  to  install 
them  in  order  to  escape  the  annoyances  of  the  more  frequent  inspec- 
tions. No  step  taken  by  the  Board  of  Health  would  give  it  such 
effective  control  of  the  milk  supply  and  be  so  easy  of  administration 
and  so  economical  in  the  use  of  inspectors.  For  it  would  leave  them 
practically  free  to  center  their  work  in  those  districts  which  neither 
maintained  laboratories  nor  were  advanced  in  the  sanitary  produc- 
tion of  milk. 

Much  valuable  help  has  been  contributed  to  the  sanitary  control 
of  the  New  York  milk  supply  by  private  welfare  organizations, 
among  which  the  New  York  Milk  Committee  and  the  National  Com- 
mission on  Milk  Standards,  stand  pre-eminent.  Much  of  the  initial 
activity  and  efficiency  of  the  Board  of  Health  has  been  due  to  the 
urgings  of  the  Milk  Committee.  The  adoption  of  standards  was 
originally  proposed  by  the  National  Commission  on  Milk  Standards, 
which  still  retains  its  organization  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the 
adoption  of  standards  by  other  cities  in  the  country.  The  work  of 
such  organizations,  when  constructive  and  comprehensive  in  its 
nature,  is  very  valuable.  The  tendency,  however,  is  for  them  to  pick 
out  one  particular  interest  of  the  industry  for  exposure  and  criticism 
without  taking  into  consideration  that  to  assail  unduly  one  of  its 
branches  may  have  a  detrimental  effect  upon  the  whole  industry. 

Perhaps  the  most  successful  and  permanent  type  of  control  is 
that  which  takes  its  origin  in  the  private  interests  of  the  industry 
itself.  Certain  of  the  progressive  companies  of  New  York  City  have 
made  the  beginnings  in  co-operation  with  the  producers  by 
g;iving  premiums  for  certain  desired  results  on  the  farm.  For  in- 
stance, a  premium  has  been  given  for  barn  score,  for  butter  fat,  for 
low  bacteria  tests  as  shown  by  laboratory  counts.  The  basis  for 
these  premiums  has  often  been  faulty  but  the  tendency  has  been  in 
the  right  direction.  It  is  by  stimulating  this  spirit  of  co-operation  and 
eliminating  the  theory  of  coercion  by  the  dealer  over  the  producer 
that  the  Health  Department  may  hope  to  get  the  best  results  in  con- 
trol through  the  milk  dealers. 

33 


....<>-:..>-  f...,j'»-,.. -,■■•■-  'it  a  li --'■''''■'- 


I 


In  its  unwillingness  in  times  past  to  co-operate  especially  with 
the  milk  dealers,  the  Health  Department  has  been  less  justified 
perhaps  than  in  any  other  part  of  its  program.  In  the  first 
place,  certain  regulations  have  been  passed  without  consulting 
the  milk  dealers  and  many  times  without  scientific  bases.  There 
is  also  a  vast  difference  between  the  tests  that  are  made  in  the 
laboratory  and  tests  that  have  a  basis  co-extensive  with  the  industry. 
Regulations  founded  on  laboratory  data  may  not  always  be  suc- 
cessfully applicable  to  the  industry  as  a  whole.  A  few  years  ago  a 
regulation  was  passed  providing  that  milk  should  be  pasteurized  by 
heating  it  to  145  degrees  and  holding  it  for  thirty  minutes.  This 
regulation  was  not  based  upon  experiments  conducted  in  the  in- 
dustry. The  dealers  were  not  consulted.  Many  of  the  dealers  would 
have  been  more  than  willing  to  co-operate  with  the  Department  in 
making  a  series  of  experiments  which  would  have  fixed  a  practicable 
basis  for  a  pasteurization  regulation.  Those  dealers  who  complied 
with  the  new  regulation  when  passed  found  that  their  milk  had  lost 
commercial  value.  The  cream  line  was  impaired  and  in  many  cases 
the  taste  was  affected.  Against  the  protest  of  the  dealers  this  regu- 
lation was  kept  in  force  for  several  months  until  finally  the  Depart- 
ment, seeing  die  necessity,  made  an  experiment  in  the  various  plants 
with  the  pasteurizing  machinery  of  the  dealers  and  found  that  the 
dealers  were  right  in  their  contention,  and  changed  the  regulation, 
thus  finally  doing  what  should  have  been  done  in  the  first  instance. 
Some  two  years  ago  a  rule  was  passed  by  the  Board  of  Health  which 
in  effect  provided  that  milk  that  did  not  conform  to  the  standard  of 
8%  solids,  not  fat,  would  be  treated  as  adulterated  milk.  On  the 
earnest  protest  of  the  dealers,  this  regulation,  the  formulation  of 
which  was  shown  to  have  no  scientific  or  experimental  basis  as 
applied  to  the  dairy  situation  in  New  York  state,  was  allowed  to  lapse. 

There  is  no  better  place  to  start  the  theory  of  co-operation  than 
in  the  relations  between  this  agency  of  public  regulation  and  the 
various  branches  of  the  industry.  The  sanitary  control  of  the  future 
will  never  be  successful  unless  this  principle  of  co-operation  is 
adopted.  The  producers  are  learning  the  power  and  value  of  or- 
ganization and  they  are  backed  by  interests  too  powerful  to  stand 
any  great  amount  of  coercion  from  the  city  health  authorities.  The 
dealers  will  never  advance  in  prestige  nor  in  efficiency  until  they  are 
made  to  feel  by  those  public  agencies  which  deal  with  them  that 
they  are  capable,  trustworthy  and  entitled  to  be  consulted  in  for- 
mulating the  regulations  that  are  to  be  imposed  upon  them. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Promotion  of  Natural  Co-operation. 
The  facts  in  the  New  York  milk  situation  are  these: — 
1.  The  producers  principally  in  the  state  of  New  York,  have 
formed  a  combination  for  their  own  protection  and  to  con- 
trol the  sale  of  milk  to  the  city. 

34 


2.  The  New  York  distributors  encouraged  by  the  inapplicability 
of  the  Sherman  Law  (Federal  anti- trust)  and  the  Donnelly 
Act  (New  York  State  anti-combination)  to  war  conditions, 
have  consolidated  their  interests  until  there  is  but  little  com- 
petition among  them. 

3.  The  Federal  Food  Administration,  which  has  been  super- 
vising the  price  paid  for  milk  in  New  York  City,  has  dis- 
continued its  work. 

4.  At  the  present  time  there  is  no  existent  agency  to  adjust  the 
price  to  be  paid  for  milk  to  the  producers  by  the  distribu- 
tors. 

5.  The  distributors  and  producers  cannot  agree  between  them- 
selves upon  the  price  to  be  paid  the  producer.  Conflict  over 
this  price  may  now  be  a  monthly  issue. 

6.  When  the  distributor  is  forced  to  pay  more  for  milk,  he  as 
a  consequence  charges  the  consumer  the  additional  price  in 
full. 

7.  The  New  York  milk  supply  may  thus  be  so  curtailed  or  cut 
off  at  any  time  as  to  imperil  the  lives  of  babies  and  con- 
valescents dependent  upon  milk  for  their  proper  nourish- 
ment or  be  sold  at  arbitrary  prices. 

8.  There  is  almost  entire  lack  of  co-operation  between  the  pro- 
ducers, distributors  and  the  present  controlling  agents  in  the 
milk  industry. 

9.  There  is  more  or  less  inefficiency  in  the  production,  distribu- 
tion and  sanitary  control  of  the  New  York  milk  supply  so 
that  it  suffers  thereby  in  quantity,  quality  and  price. 

What  is  to  be  done?  It  will  be  our  purpose  here  to  suggest 
and  discuss  three  methods  of  handling  the  matter,  any  one  of  which 
will  probably  find  supporters  according  to  their  economic  view- 
point, although  everybody  must  agree  that  the  present  situation  is 
intolerable.    These  methods  are: — 

1.  The  promotion  of  natural  co-operation  between  producer, 
distributor  and  controlling  agent. 

2.  Public  regulation  by  a  state  commission. 

3.  Public  ownership. 

But  first  let  us  consider  the  results  that  may  be  obtained  by  the 
promotion  of  co-operation  between  the  producers,  distributors  and 
controlling  agents  in  the  milk  industry  and  by  the  use  of  efficient 
business  methods  and  organization  throughout  the  industry.  Before 
the  abnormal  conditions  created  by  America's  entrance  into  the  war 
New  York  City  was  receiving  a  first-class  milk  supply  in  quantities 
sufficient  for  the  public  demand  and  at  a  very  reasonable  price. 
There  was  a  minimum  amount  of  state  interference  and  none  of  fed- 
eral. The  milk  was  under  fair  control  without  the  aid  of  politics  or 
law  except  so  far  as  the  police  power  of  the  state,  delegated  to  the 
Board  of  Health,  enabled  it  to  pass  and  enforce  the  necessary  regu- 
lations upon  those  elements  of  the  industry  under  its  jurisdiction, 

35 


I 


which,  however,  did  not  include  the  producers  directly.  Why,  then, 
was  it  possible  to  control  the  production  of  milk?  Because  New 
York  City  was  a  good  milk  market,  the  best  one  open  to  producers. 
Cash  was  paid  for  the  milk  at  least  once  and  sometimes  twice  a 
month  and  many  conveniences  were  furnished  by  the  dealers  such 
as  cans  and  convenient  shipping  stations.  The  farmers  wanted  to 
sell  their  milk  at  the  New  York  dealers'  shipping  stations.  This 
fact  is  important.  Make  the  New  York  milk  market  a  good  one, 
especially  let  the  farmer  be  paid  for  what  is  demanded  of  him  by 
the  public.  While  New  York  City  was  getting  its  milk  prior  to  the 
war,  it  was  not  paying  the  price  for  its  demands  either  to  the  pro- 
ducer nor  to  the  dealer  and  the  unrest  and  consequent  organization 
of  the  producers  together  with  the  restraints  under  which  the  dealers 
were  operating,  were  indicative  of  trouble  in  the  whole  business 
machinery. 

At  first,  neither  the  regulations  nor  the  inspections  imposed  by 
the  Board  of  Health  were  onerous  and  were  submitted  to  without 
serious  question.  The  city  inspectors  had  no  legal  right  on  the 
farms,  but  were  permitted  to  do  their  work  because  the  producers 
wanted  the  New  York  market.  However,  the  regulations  began  to 
increase  in  stringency  and  the  demands  of  the  health  authorities  to 
cost  money.  New  barns  had  to  be  built,  concrete  floors  to  be  laid 
in  old  barns,  ventilation  provided,  cow  barns  were  prohibited  from 
being  used  for  any  other  purpose,  ice  had  to  be  stored,  and  so  on. 
The  price  paid  to  the  farmers  did  not  keep  pace  with  the  additional 
cost  of  production  under  the  new  conditions.  Premium  payments 
were  finally  adopted  by  many  of  the  dealers,  but  were  not  effective 
for  two  reasons;  first,  because  the  premiums  were  not  properly 
measured  and  adapted  to  the  situation;  second,  because  the  base 
price  was  lowered  so  that  the  additions  to  the  milk  checks  did  not 
have  the  full  effect  of  premium  payments.  Not  until  the  war  market 
for  cheese  and  condensed  milk  appeared  and  the  producers  had 
become  thoroughly  organized,  did  the  price  of  milk  to  the  producer 
become  better  and  then  the  change  was  made  after  a  show  of  con*- 
pulsion  that  in  many  respects  made  the  matter  worse  than  ever. 
A  more  concrete  diagnosis  of  the  case  with  suggested  remedies 
follows. 

First,  a  false  notion  that  the  price  of  bottled  milk  to  the  con- 
sumer should  be  a  fixed  one,  winter  and  summer,  regardless  of  the 
economics  of  production. 

The  fact  that  for  a  number  of  years  before  the  war  the  price  of 
milk  in  New  York  City  was  fixed  at  9  cents  throughout  the  year,  is 
only  another  evidence  of  the  close  connections  between  the  milk 
business  and  what  are  generally  regarded  as  public  service  functions. 
But,  in  the  case  of  milk,  owing  to  the  great  differences  in  the  amounts 
and  cost  of  production  at  various  seasons  of  the  year,  such  inelas- 
ticity of  price  tended  to  hide  from  the  consumer  that  there  was  such 
a  thing  as  the  cost  of  production  and  delivery,  while  the  dealer  in 

36 


order  to  make  up  for  losses  which  he  experiences  in  the  winter 
months,  endeavors  to  buy  his  milk  as  cheaply  as  possible  at  all 
seasons  of  the  year.  It  is  also  less  expensive  to  deliver  milk  when 
the  weather  is  good  than  when  the  streets  are  blocked  with  snow  and 
ice,  and  certain  routes  in  summer  are  so  small  that  they  are  operated 
at  a  loss.  However,  delivery  costs  are  subject  to  more  intelligent 
control  than  production  costs.  If  the  dealer  would  be  permitted  to 
arrange  his  prices  to  the  consumer  so  that  he  could  make  a  reason- 
able profit  in  every  month  of  the  year,  he  would  be  more  reconciled 
to  the  payment  of  fair  prices  to  the  farmer  at  all  times. 

Second,  the  failure  of  the  dealers  fairly  to  recognize  effort  and 
expense  on  the  part  of  the  producer  in  meeting  their  requirements, 
and  the  lack  of  co-operation  between  these  two  interests. 

The  best  way  to  recognize  effort  and  expense  on  the  part  of  the 
producer  is  to  do  it  directly  by  the  payment  of  an  additional  price 
for  the  same.  But  such  price  should  be  fairly  commensurate  with 
what  is  required  of  the  farmer,  and  this  naturally  implies  some 
standard  of  measurement.  There  are  at  least  two  bases  for  premiums, 
one  for  the  extra  physical  effort  and  expenditure  made  by  the  farmer 
to  meet  the  requirements,  i.  e.,  sanitary  equipment,  the  use  of  sani- 
tary methods,  small  mouthed  pails,  ice,  etc.  The  second  basis  for 
paying  premiums  should  be  for  results  in  the  cleanliness  and  rich- 
ness of  the  milk  ascertained  by  means  of  laboratories  located  at  the 
country  creameries.  These  laboratories  should  also  be  used  to 
relate  the  results  with  the  methods  used  on  the  farms,  the  laboratory 
through  its  experts  thus  becoming  the  educational  center  of  that 
particular  dairy  section,  and  every  effort  on  the  part  of  the  farmer 
to  produce  better  milk  in  larger  quantities  and  with  more  profit  to 
himself  should  be  encouraged.  The  idea  of  a  local  dairy  center  can 
be  worked  most  advantageously  to  create  good  will  and  co-operation 
in  the  industry.  Co-operative  buying  of  cow  feed  for  the  farmers, 
cow  testing,  advising  better  business  methods  on  the  farm  and  the 
best  methods  of  clean  milk  production  may  all  become  functions  of 
such  a  center.  Herein  will  lie  the  best  means  of  control  that  is  open 
to  the  Board  of  Health.  It  can  well  afford  to  extend  every  aid  in 
its  power  to  the  companies  who  adopt  such  a  policy  with  the  pro- 
ducer. By  all  means  it  should  encourage  the  establishment  of  coun- 
try laboratories  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  better  control  of 
the  quality  of  milk  produced.  It  can  standardize  the  methods  used 
in  these  laboratories  by  giving  a  certain  amount  of  education  in  its 
city  laboratories  to  the  men  who  do  this  work  and,  when  the  country 
laboratories  and  centers  are  once  established,  it  would  be  excellent 
policy  for  the  Board  of  Health  to  supervise  and  check  the  results 
obtained  here,  rather  than  by  insisting  upon  the  same  number  of 
direct  inspections  in  such  dairy  sections,  as  in  one  that  is  not  thus 
controlled.  This  would  mean  less  expense  to  the  Board  of  Health  in 
its  inspection  work,  better  and  more  economical  general  control,  for 
it  would  thus  be  free  to  center  its  inspection  force  in  those  districts 

37 


1 


which  are  more  in  need  of  its  time  and  attention.  In  short,  as 
officially  representing  the  New  York  public,  its  work  should  be 
co-operative  as  well  as  regulatory. 

Third,  lack  of  harmony  and  co-operation  between  the  Board  of 
Health  and  the  dealers. 

The  time  has  passed  when  the  milk  dealer  should  be  looked 
upon  as  an  evader  of  the  law.  The  presumption  should  be  in  favor 
of  his  honesty  and  good  faith.  Much  better  and  more  efficient  con- 
trol could  be  gained  by  the  Board  in  adopting  this  attitude  towards 
the  dealer  and  working  with  him  in  solving  his  problems  of  control 
rather  than  by  prosecuting  him  for  isolated  instances  of  the  evasion 
of  misunderstood  regulations.  No  regulation  should  be  made  until 
it  was  found  to  be  reasonable  and  based  upon  experiments,  made  on 
an  industrial  scale  rather  than  altogether  upon  laboratory  results. 
The  Board  of  Health  representing  the  city  and  the  consumer  should 
rejoice  in  the  prosperity  of  the  dealer  and  no  regulations  should  be 
passed  that  were  not  reasonable  and  did  not  guarantee  a  more  salable 
as  well  as  a  more  sanitary  product. 

Fourth,  a  certain  amount  of  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
Board  of  Health  in  the  business  plans  and  individuality  of  the 
dealer. 

This  is  not  a  prominent  cause  of  trouble  in  the  industry,  but  it 
is  an  important  consideration.  The  milk  dealer  is  a  business  man 
and  should  be  encouraged  to  put  individuality  into  his  business  but 
without  making  it  impossible  for  him  to  comply  with  the  Board  of 
Health  regulations.  He  should  be  allowed  to  honestly  advertise  his 
product,  to  put  as  much  character  into  his  packages  as  possible  and 
in  every  way  to  build  up  the  integrity  of  his  organization  and  his 
position  as  a  business  man. 

Fifth,  lack  of  business  methods  and  organization. 
This  fault,  as  has  been  shown  in  former  chapters,  is  a  leading 
cause  of  most  of  the  inefficiencies  in  production,  distribution  and 
control.  A  better  understanding  of  the  industry  as  a  whole  on  the 
part  of  each  branch,  the  application  of  intelligent  analysis  to  spe- 
cific problems,  the  use  of  simple  accounting  processes  and  the 
stopping  of  losses  will  do  much  to  put  the  industry  on  a  more 
efficient  basis. 

The  foregoing  criticisms  of  the  situation  and  the  reconimenda- 
tions  made  are  not  purely  theoretical.  Natural  co-operation  has 
already  done  much  that  is  tangible  in  certain  instances  to  create 
vastly  improved  conditions. 

In  a  certain  valley  near  the  center  of  New  York  state  are  three 
country  creameries  about  four  miles  apart  and  on  the  same  railroad 
line.  Each  creamery  is  the  center  of  an  ideal  farm  and  dairying 
section  with  a  list  of  patrons  about  equally  intelligent  and  probably 
above  the  average  in  this  respect.  Two  of  these  creameries  were 
owned  by  a  New  York  milk  company  not  overly  progressive  in  its 
methods  or  its  attitude  toward  its  producers.    Fortunately,  the  third 

creamery  fell  into  different  hands. 

38 


■IM 


In  the  year  1909  an  innovation  in  country  creamery  manage- 
ment was  here  initiated,  which  is  worthy  of  a  prominent  place  in 
the  history  of  dairying.  The  New  York  Milk  Committee,  which  had 
been  maintaining  a  number  of  infant  feeding  stations  in  New  York 
City  and  had  been  using  certified  milk  for  feeding  the  babies  regis- 
tered therein,  promoted  a  separate  project  among  its  friends  and 
contributors  known  as  the  New  York  Dairy  Demonstration  Company. 
This  was  for  the  purpose  first  of  obtaining  a  clean  milk  for  its  babies 
at  a  cheaper  price  than  it  was  paying  for  certified  milk,  thereby 
enabling  it  to  reach  a  larger  number  of  infants  with  the  funds  at  its 
disposal,  and  second  of  demonstrating  that  an  unlimited  amount  of 
milk  approaching  the  certified  in  wholesomeness  and  cleanliness 
could  be  obtained  at  the  lower  cost  desired.  This  was  to  be  accom- 
plished by  centralizing  the  more  essential  requisites  of  sanitary  milk 
production,  by  installing  a  country  laboratory  for  the  purpose  of 
relating  the  results  obtained  therein  with  the  work  done  on  the 
farms,  and  by  securing  the  co-operation  of  the  producers  by  inaugur- 
ating the  policy  of  paying  premiums  in  addition  to  the  prevailing 
market  price  of  milk  which  premiums  should  be  based  on  approved 
results  obtained  by  them.  They  hoped  at  the  same  time  to  create  a 
model  system  of  producing  clean  milk  that  would  be  copied  by  at 
least  some  of  the  milk  companies  supplying  New  York  City.  While 
this  experiment  and  the  country  creamery  situation  growing  out  of  it 
had  its  ups  and  downs,  two  indisputable  facts  became  apparent,  one 
being  that,  properly  managed,  the  new  theory  was  practical  from 
both  the  sanitary  and  the  commercial  standpoint,  and  the  second 
being  that  no  plan  of  creamery  policy  ever  produced  better  efficiency 
results  in  the  matter  of  quality,  quantity  and  the  placement  of  the 
product  for  profit  and  with  a  resulting  contentment  and  spirit  of 
co-operation  among  the  producers. 

This  first  conclusion  was  borne  out  by  the  accounting  records 
of  the  companies  operating  the  creamery,  the  second  one  by  the  fol- 
lowing facts.  In  the  month  when  the  dealer  who  owned  creameries 
1  and  2  sold  his  business,  creamery  number  3  differing  only  in  man- 
agement from  the  other  two,  received  268,342  quarts  while  creamery 
number  1  received  only  52,704  quarts  and  creamery  number  2, 
56,424  quarts,  thus  demonstrating  that  natural  co-operation  is  both 
appreciated  by  the  farmers  and  is  profitable  from  a  business  stand- 
point. After  two  years'  experience  under  what  were  supposed  to  be 
trying  times  for  the  milk  industry,  creamery  number  3  for  the  same 
month  in  1917  received  377,848  quarts,  a  gain  of  41%.  In  Sep- 
tember, 1916,  when  the  great  demand  arose  among  the  farmers  for 
more  money  for  their  milk,  not  a  complaint  was  heard  among  the 
patrons  at  this  creamery  and  they  were  induced  with  great  difficulty 
to  join  in  the  strike  because  of  general  satisfaction  with  their  own 
position.  The  fame  of  the  movement  spread  abroad  and  many  farms 
tributary  to  the  creamery  were  sold  at  greatly  enhanced  prices  by 
reason  of  the  favorable  dairy  market.    Unfortunately,  however,  this 

39 


-■ST" 


plan  of  creamery  management  did  not  find  general  favor  with  the 
New  York  dealers,  for  in  the  face  of  a  steadily  growing  and  apparent 
discontentment  among  the  producers,  they  were  not  inclined  to  take 
the  movement  seriously.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  very  many  of 
dealers  today  find  their  business  interests  absorbed  by  larger  and 
more  strongly  financed  companies  or  their  buying  policy  controlled 
by  the  producer's  organization. 

Much  more  probably  might  have  been  done  toward  natural 
co-operation  between  the  dealers  and  producers  in  creamery  3,  but 
its  almost  isolated  success  upon  the  co-operative  theory  is  simply 
indicative  of  the  unprogressive  business  methods  that  have  to  a  large 
extent  in  the  past  dominated  the  milk  industry.  Of  course,  as  has 
been  indicated  before,  there  was  little  encouragement  from  the  public 
for  a  more  constructive  policy.  To  be  sure,  a  system  of  barn  score 
and  butter  fat  premiums  was  established  by  some  of  the  bigger  com- 
panies prior  to  September,  1916,  but  this  system  was  neither  correct 
in  theory  nor  in  the  justice  of  its  applications.  Such  premiums  were 
never  generally  regarded  by  the  producer  as  a  step  toward  co-opera- 
tion, but  rather  as  a  part  of  the  just  price  withheld  which  had  to  be 
doubly  earned  in  order  to  be  received. 

During  the  year  1918,  a  milk  exposition  was  held  in  Grand 
Central  Palace,  New  York  City,  at  which  the  dairymen,  the  distrib- 
utors, the  Department  of  Health,  the  State  Department  and  the  con- 
sumers were  represented.  This  show  was  so  great  a  success  that  it 
was  voted  to  make  it  an  annual  affair.  At  such  a  meeting  as  this 
the  foundation  might  well  be  laid  for  co-operation. 

The  demand  of  the  times  in  all  industry  is  not  so  much  for  asso- 
ciations which  simply  hold  annual  meetings,  read  and  discuss  tech- 
nical papers  and  indulge  in  industrial  politics  but  rather  for  indus- 
trial agencies  properly  and  permanently  manned  by  responsible  e;c- 
perts  in  which  all  the  divergent  interests  unite  to  constructively  study 
those  problems  common  to  all,  to  acquaint  the  public  with  whatever 
is  of  real  value  in  the  industry  and  thus  by  pooling  contributions  to 
economically  build  and  promote  and  indirectly  to  throw  into  the 
background  those  little  differences  which,  if  not  properly  guarded 
against,  tend  to  destroy. 

There  is  one  conunon  cause,  certainly,  upon  which  both  the 
producers  and  dealers  in  the  milk  industry  may  profitably  join,  and 
that  is  the  popularization  of  the  use  of  milk  as  a  food,  not  only  for 
babies  and  children  but  for  people  of  all  ages.  Within  the  past 
two  or  three  years  much  scientific  work  has  been  done  by  thoroughly 
responsible  men  which  shows  the  comparatively  high  food  value  of 
milk.  If  the  dealers  and  producers  will  join  hands  in  a  great  cam- 
paign of  publicity  many  of  the  petty  differences  that  at  present 
hinder  the  industry  will  be  forgotten. 

There  are  also  men  outside  the  industry  who  know  its  problems 
and  are  interested  in  its  normal  development  in  private  hands.  They 
might  be  helpful  in  laying  the  plans  for  co-operation.    At  least  it  is 

40 


of  great  importance  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  business  in 
any  of  its  phases  awake  to  the  situation  and  perform  their  several 
functions  with  a  better  understanding  of  the  importance  and  dignity 
of  their  calling  and  with  greater  regard  for  the  rights  of  the  great 
public  they  are  serving,  or  face  the  consequences  of  possible  action 
on  the  part  of  the  public  for  its  own  protection. 

CHAPTER  V. 
PuBuc  Regulation  by  State  Commission 

In  the  last  chapter  we  have  outlined  a  method  by  which  the  milk 
industry  as  a  whole  and  the  separate  interests  operating  in  it  would 
be  materially  helped  by  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  each  of  the 
several  interests  of  the  requisites  for  the  healthful  existence  of  the 
others  and  by  the  introduction  throughout  the  industry  of  co-opera- 
tion. Instances  of  successful  co-operation  in  the  industry  in  the  past 
and  the  lines  along  which  this  principle  might  properly  be  extended, 
were  pointed  out,  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  if  the  several  inter- 
ests will  co-operate  naturally  and  on  their  own  initiative,  this  will 
offer  the  best  solution  to  the  ills  that  beset  the  milk  business.  How- 
ever, the  great  trouble  is  that  they  have  not  co-operated  in  the  past 
and  may  not  do  so  in  the  future  unless  some  agency  outside  the 
industry  furnishes  the  necessary  initiative  to  start  the  movement. 
But  an  agency  to  perform  this  function  would  have  to  be  clothed  with 
sufficient  authority  and  gauged  aldng  lines  broad  enough  to  have  the 
prestige  and  to  command  the  respect  of  those  engaged  in  or 
dependent  upon  the  industry.  Such  an  agency  must  needs  have  the 
power  to  compel  as  well  as  the  ability  to  initiate  and  must  derive  its 
power  directly  or  indirectly  from  that  source  which  is  charged  with 
the  duty  of  protecting  the  people  in  their  rights,  health,  and  welfare, 
even  to  the  extent  of  regulating  the  business  affairs  of  the  private 
interests  which  serve  them.  This  source  of  power  is  the  state  itself 
and  the  regulating  force  with  which  the  state  is  endowed  and  which 
it  has  the  power  to  delegate  to  a  properly  constructed  agency  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  the  people  of  New  York  City  in  their  milk 
supply,  is  called  the  police  power  of  the  state. 

Let  us  therefore  examine  the  utility  and  legality  of  a  commis- 
sion appointed  for  the  purpose,  havmg  delegated  to  it  the  police 
power  of  the  state  of  New  York.  Such  a  commission  should  derive 
its  authority  and  appointment  directly  from  the  state  rather  than 
from  the  municipality,  both  for  the  reason  that  its  functions  should 
be  exercised  not  only  for  New  York  City,  but  for  the  other  munici- 
palities of  the  state  as  well,  and  in  order  that  such  a  conunission 
might  have  the  fullest  possible  authority  over  production  and  the 
producers  who  come  within  its  jurisdiction.  What  we  say,  therefore, 
in  the  matter  of  its  powers  and  duties  over  the  milk  supply  of  New 
York  City  may,  though  differing  somewhat  in  detail,  be  said  of  its 
powers  and  duties  over  the  milk  supply  of  the  other  cities  of  the 
state. 

41 


wmmmimm 


MH 


IP" 


I 

li 


Such  a  commission  might  be  composed  of  from  three  to  seven 
members,  there  being  represented  upon  it  the  producer,  distributor, 
consumer,  the  state  and  the  city.    These  men  should  be  thoroughly 
practical  and  progressive  and  above  all  things  should  be  representa- 
tive of  their  several  interests,  on  a  co-operative  basis.    The  term  of 
their  office  and  the  character  of  their  compensation  should  be  such 
as  to  attract  high-class  men  to  make  service  on  the  commission  their 
sole  business  and  to  justify  them  in  devoting  all  their  time  and 
energy  to  its  work;  and  their  authority  should  be  final  on  all  juris- 
dictional milk  matters  referred  to  them.    Their  functions  should  be 
investigatory,  supervisory,  educational  and  compulsory.    The  com- 
mission should  make  a  thorough  inquiry  into  the  methods  used  in 
production,  their  efficiency  and  purpose.     This  would  involve  not 
only  matters  of  quality,  but  also  of  quantity,  of  the  cost  of  labor, 
cows,  feed,  ice,  country  distribution  and  handling  of  shipping  and 
the  character  of  profit  demanded  in  the  country.    At  the  city  end,  it 
should   view  the   organization,   conditions   and   efficiency   of   milk 
delivery,  the  equipment  used,  the  cost  entailed  and  the  final  price 
demanded  of  the  consumer  with  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  profit 

involved.  ,      ..  ,        .„         i       i      u 

The  conditions  of  demand  and  supply  of  the  milk  market  should 
be  studied  and  considered,  the  permanency  and  the  regularity  of  its 
requirements,  the  certainty  of  pay  and  the  adequacy  of  price;  also 
the  capital  invested  throughout  the  industry,  the  efficient  construction 
and  placement  of  pasteurizing  plants  and  the  reasonableness  and 
purpose  of  sanitary  regulations.  All  these  investigations  should  be 
made  on  an  industrial  scale  and  with  the  whole  industry  in  mind. 
The  commissioners  should  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  progres- 
sive development  of  the  industry  in  all  parts  of  the  country  and 
should  relate  and  compare  this  progress  with  their  own  work. 

Then  comes  the  supervisory  and  educational  part  of  their  work. 
The  commissioners  should  have  the  power  to  license  both  producers 
and  distributors.  With  their  knowledge  of  the  business  based  upon 
broad  investigation  and  a  thorough  understanding  of  industrial  con- 
ditions generally,  the  proper  situation  has  developed  for  them  to 
intelligently  supervise  the  industry  throughout  and  to  organize  and 
provide  various  educational  media  and  methods. 

Their  recommendation  and  findings  made  after  such  a  study 
would  be  entitled  to  and  would  win  the  respect  of  all  the  elements  to 
be  controlled,  and  thus  the  foundation  for  taking  the  initiative  in 
co-operation  would  be  accorded  to  the  commissioners  without  ques- 
tion. Such  a  leadership  would  be  a  natural  one  and  resort  of  the 
commission  to  its  compulsory  powers  would  thus  be  only  occasional, 
but  when  necessary  to  use  it,  the  wilful  wastage  of  good  milk  by  dis- 
gruntled producers  and  the  stoppage  of  New  York's  milk  supply 
could  be  summarily  dealt  with. 

The  leading  aim  of  this  commission  should  be  to  reconcile  the 
use  of  the  police  power  with  which  it  is  endowed  with  the  needs  and 

42 


development  of  the  industry.  If  unintelligently  applied,  the  police 
power  may  be  distinctly  repressive  and  in  no  way  developmental, 
but  if  it  can  be  used  with  the  constructive  ideal  in  mind  and  with  a 
thorough  understanding  of  the  needs  of  the  industry  based  upon 
practical  experience  and  investigations  it  may  well  become  the  indis- 
pensable aid  of  the  public  in  securing  its  rights  without  hurtfully 
interfering  with  the  full  play  of  that  private  business  initiative  which 
is  so  necessary  to  the  growth  of  the  industry.  If  such  a  commission 
could  bring  aJbout  successful  co-operation,  efficient  methods  of  con- 
trol and  insure  a  reasonable  profit  to  the  producers  and  distributors 
for  the  performance  of  their  functions,  the  New  York  milk  market 
would  become  so  good  as  to  attract  milk  from  all  localities.  Our 
commission  could  have  legal  jurisdiction  only  over  the  producers  in 
New  York  State,  but  the  industry  governed  by  such  intelligent  direc- 
tion would  be  so  far  in  advance  of  the  situation  in  outside  states  and 
the  market  conditions  created  thereby  would  become  so  good  that, 
in  order  to  enjoy  its  benefits,  outsiders  would  seek  the  New  York 
market  and  would  willingly  submit  to  any  reasonable  licensing  and 
inspection  requirements  demanded  by  the  commission.  In  other 
words,  the  co-operative,  intelligently  directed  part  of  the  industry 
would  dominate  the  rest.  There  could  be  enough  milk  produced  in 
the  State  of  New  York  alone  to  prevent  undue  hardship  in  case  of 
any  farmers'  combination  in  the  outside  states.  The  work  of  such  a 
commission  could  therefore  insure  milk  in  sufficient  quantities  and 
controlled  along  much  broader  lines  than  the  city  Department  of 
Health  has  been  able  to  perform  this  function  in  the  past. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  legal  status  of  such  a  commission. 
Can  it  be  appointed  under  the  laws  of  New  York  State  and  can  it 
exercise  such  powers  as  would  make  it  the  effective  instrument  of  the 
people  for  protecting  them  in  their  milk  supply.  There  are  several 
positive  things  it  would  have  to  do. 

1.  Pass  and  enforce  sanitary  regulations. 

2.  License  dealers  and  dairymen  and  revoke  licenses. 

3.  Enforce  inspections. 

4.  Supervise  and  regulate  milk  markets. 

5.  Supervise  and  regulate  the  methods  of  production  and  distri- 
bution with  a  view  to  promoting  efficiency. 

6.  Regulate  prices. 

But  first  there  are  a  number  of  general  questions  involved  which 
it  will  be  well  to  answer. 

1.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  police  power  of  the  state. 

2.  Can  the  police  power  be  delegated  to  a  milk  commission. 

3.  Is  the  police  power  applicable  to  the  regulation  of  the  milk 
industry. 

4.  What  are  the  general  grounds  for  the  application  of  the 
police  power  to  the  milk  industry. 

In  Com.  vs.  Alger  7  Cush.  53,  C.  J.  Shaw  defined  the  police 
power  to  be,  "The  power  vested  in  the  legislature  by  the  constitution, 

43 


to  make,  ordain  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome  and  rea- 
sonable laws,  statutes  and  ordinances,  either  with  penalties  or  with- 
out, not  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  as  they  shall  judge  to  be  for 
the  good  and  welfare  of  the  commonwealth.  It  is  much  easier  to 
perceive  and  realize  the  existence  and  sources  of  this  power  than  to 
mark  its  boundaries  or  prescribe  limits  to  its  exercise."  Judge 
O'Brien  in  People  ex  rel  Armstrong  vs.  Warden  of  City  Prison  says, 
"All  business  and  occupations  are  conducted  subject  to  the  exercise 
of  the  police  power.  Individual  freedom  must  yield  to  regulations 
for  the  public  good." 

It  is  said  in  8  Cyc.  865,  "A  legislature  cannot,  by  any  contract, 
divest  itself  of  its  power,  but  it  may  delegate  its  power  and  jurisdic- 
tion to  courts,  municipalities,  or  committies  to  adopt  police  meas- 
ures," citing  Woodruff  vs.  New  York  etc.  R.  R.  Co.  59  Conn.  63, 
where  a  commission  is  empowered  to  enforce  change  of  grade  cross- 
ings. New  York  State's  most  popularly  known  conmiissTon,  exer- 
cising broad  jurisdiction  in  the  City  of  New  York,  is  the  Public 
Service  Commission,  the  constitutionality  of  which  was  lately  raised 
in  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Straus  245  Fed.  132.  A  Milk 
Commission  undoubtedly  could  be  appointed  by  state  authority 
endowed  with  the  police  power. 

Our  next  inquiry  is  in  regard  to  the  application  of  the  police 
power  to  the  regulation  of  the  milk  industry.  As  we  saw  in  People 
vs  Warden  above,  "All  business  and  occupations  are  conducted  sub- 
ject thereto."  In  St.  Louis  vs.  Liessing,  I  L.R.A.  N.S.  921,  the  Court 
says,  "Perhaps  on  no  one  subject  has  this  police  power  been  affirmed 
so  often  as  the  right  to  inspect  and  regulate  the  sale  of  milk  and 

cream." 

In  a  note  to  the  above,  in  which  many  of  the  leading  cases  are 
cited,  the  annotator  commenting  says,  "The  group  of  cases  here 
reported  well  illustrate  the  attitude  of  the  courts  generally  toward 
police  regulation  of  the  milk  supply.  The  importance  of  securing  to 
the  community  at  large  cleanliness,  wholesomeness  and  purity  in  so 
important  a  food  as  milk,  has  led  to  the  very  general  enactment 
throughout  the  country  of  regulations  as  to  the  standard  of  quality 
of  milk  sold,  the  care  and  feeding  of  milch  cattle,  and  the  sale  of 
the  product.  And  while  such  regulations  have  been  frequently 
assailed  upon  the  ground  that  they  deprive  the  dairyman  and  milk 
vendor  of  their  property  without  due  process  of  law,  or  unjustly 
discriminate  against  them,  the  regulations  have  been  sustained  with 
practical  unanimity,  whether  made  by  the  state  through  the  operation 
of  a  general  statute  or  by  the  municipal  council  through  local  ordi- 
nances. Among  the  cases  cited  here  are  People  vs.  Cipperly  101 
N.Y.  634,  People  vs.  West  106  N.  Y.  293,  and  many  others. 

Our  fourth  question,  as  to  what  are  the  general  grounds  for  the 
application  of  the  ^police  power  to  the  milk  industry,  is  easily 
answered.  In  People  vs.  Warden  183  N.Y.  220,  before  cited,  the 
Court  says,  "It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  general  principle  that  legisla- 

AA 


tion  is  valid  which  has  for  its  object  the  promotion  of  the  public 
health,  safety,  morals,  convenience  and  general  welfare  or  the  pre- 
vention of  fraud  or  immorality."  However,  the  very  nature  of  our 
subject  being  a  food  makes  us  think  instinctively  of  health,  and  so 
it  is  that  the  digests  are  full  of  cases  where  milk,  its  production  and 
distribution  have  been  regulated  on  the  ground  of  public  health. 
People  vs.  Kibler  106  N.Y.  321,  Bellows  vs.  Raynor  207  N.Y.  389, 
People  vs.  Vandecarr  175  N.Y.  440,  State  vs.  Broadbelt  89  Md.  565, 
Adams  vs.  Milwaukee  129  N.W.  518,  State  vs.  Layton  160  Mo.  498, 
and  many  others. 

We  now  approach  the  solution  of  our  specific  problem.  With 
the  milk  commission  established,  endowed  with  the  police  power  of 
the  state,  will  this  power  be  broad  enough  to  cover  those  positive 
functions  which  it  will  have  to  perform  in  order  to  make  it  effective. 
Could  a  milk  commission  pass  sanitary  regulations  protecting  the 
quality  of  milk,  creating  standards  of  cleanliness,  providing  for 
'  inspections  and  licensing  of  milk  vendors  to  its  markets,  even  those 
living  outside  its  jurisdiction,  and  enforce  them?  Would  it  have 
power  to  regulate  its  milk  market  and  sales?  There  are  innumerable 
decisions  which  support  this  right  of  municipalities  as  against  the 
claim  that  they  deprive  the  dairyman  or  the  milk  vendor  of  theii; 
property  without  due  process  of  law,  or  unjustly  discriminate  against 
them.  It  is  simply  conforming  to  the  general  proposition;  if  you 
sell  milk  in  my  market,  you  must  respect  my  regulations. 

In  Bellows  vs.  Raynor  207  N.Y.  389,  the  plaintiff  engaged  in 
dairy  farming  and  a  member  of  a  creamery  company  claimed  that 
the  defendant,  Chief  of  the  Division  of  Sanitary  Inspection  of  New 
York  City,  wrongfully  entered  upon  his  premises  and  interfered  with 
his  business.  The  defendant  notified  plaintiff  of  certain  unsanitary 
conditions  on  his  dairy  farm  which  if  not  improved  would  exclude 
his  milk  from  the  city.  Later  a  letter  was  addressed  to  the  creamery 
company  in  which  it  was  informed  that  the  rules  of  the  Department 
were  still  being  violated  and  gave  notice  not  to  include  plaintiff's 
milk  in  future  shipments.  The  Court  held  that  this  was  a  valid 
exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  Department  of  Health  of  New 
York  City,  that  it  is  charged  by  law  with  the  responsibility  of  pre- 
venting pestilence  and  disease  in  the  city  of  New  York.  That  its 
duty  is  to  enforce  all  laws  applicable  to  the  preservation  of  human 
life  and  the  promotion  of  health — ^that  it  has  the  right  to  exact  from 
all  shippers  a  compliance  with  such  conditions  as  would  reasonably 
tend  to  a  pure  product  for  the  use  of  its  citizens  as  a  condition  of 
permiuing  its  sale  in  the  city  of  New  York,  The  Court  through 
Judge  Gray  said,  "It  is  unreasonable  to  say  that  the  Department  of 
Health  in  exercising  such  power  renders  itself  amenable  to  the 
charge  of  exercising  an  extra  territorial  jurisdiction."  Other  cases 
along  the  same  lines  are  People  vs.  Vandicarr  175  N.Y.  440,  State 
vs.  Broadbelt  89  Md.  565,  State  vs.  Nelson  66  Minn.,  and  many 
others. 

45 


^i5«» 


! 


Whatever  powers  the  city  or  its  Department  of  Health  might 
have  in  this  regard  could  be  delegated  to  a  properly  authorized  Milk 
Commission,  and  vendors  of  milk  outside  the  state  would  have  to 
comply  with  its  sanitary  regulations  before  entering  the  state  mar- 
kets with  their  product.  The  sanitary  code  of  the  City  of  New  York 
requiring  license  for  the  sale  of  milk  is  constitutional ;  People  ex  rel 
Liebeman  vs.  Vandicarr  175  N.Y.  440,  People  ex  rel  Lodes  vs.  Board 
of  Health  189  N.Y.  187.  Inasmuch  as  the  police  powers  exercised 
by  both  a  milk  commission  and  a  municipality  are  delegated  by  the 
state  and  their  auAority  is  of  equal  standing,  the  commission  would 
have  the  same  power  to  license  dealers  and  dairymen  and  to  revoke 
their  licenses,  these  not  being  vested  rights. 

As  to  markets  and  market  places,  it  is  said  in  28  Cyc.  930,  "The 
authority  to  establish  and  regulate  markets  falls  within  the  police 
power  of  the  states,  which  may  be  delegated  to  municipal  corpora- 
tions, and  is  a  particularly  appropriate  subject  for  municipal  regu- 
lation, and  they  may  adopt  and  enforce  any  reasonable  and  proper 
rules  and  regulations  in  regard  to  the  market  and  the  business 
transacted  there."  This  would  enable  the  commission  to  study  and 
establish  municipal  milk  markets  if  the  interests  of  the  public  and 
the  industry  demanded  it. 

All  the  above  matters  are  supported  by  well  settled  decisions 
which  are  just  as  applicable  to  the  work  of  a  milk  commission  as 
any  other  agency  of  the  state.    We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of 
a  different  type  of  function,  that  of  supervising  and  regulating  the 
methods  of  production  and  distribution  with  a  view  to  pronaoting 
efficiency  and  the  regulation  of  prices.    The  less  the  manifestation  of 
police  power  in  the  exercise  of  these  functions  the  better.     Herein 
would  appear  the  ability,  breadth  and  good  judgment  of  the  com- 
missioners.    Herein  the  opportunity   and   demand   for   leadership 
based  on  a  solid  understanding  of  conditions.     An  unprejudiced 
study  of  the  problems  of  the  industry  would  give  the  understanding 
and  the  foundation  for  leadership.    Then  above  everything  else  the 
decisions  of  the  commissioners  must  be  fair.    A  process  of  educa- 
tion in  better  organization  and  methods  for  both  production  and 
distribution  would  be  successful  in  proportion  to  the  faith  which 
those  in  the  business  had  in  the  wisdom  and  fairness  of  the  com- 
mission.   Here  co-operation  could  be  initiated. 

But  something  more  might  be  required  than  mere  supervision 
and  education.  The  commission  must  have  the  power  to  act,  apply 
pressure  and  enforce  its  conclusions.  Every  legal  sanction  that  sup- 
ports the  use  of  the  police  power  in  its  other  health  and  welfare 
regulations  would  obtain  in  promoting  efficiency  of  production  and 
distribution  where  there  were  likely  to  be  insufficient  quantities  of 
milk  for  the  public  welfare  or  where  the  commission  was  respon- 
sible to  the  people  for  maintaining  a  just  price  for  the  milk.  The 
commission  would  find  its  main  authority  for  supervising  and  regu- 
lating efficiency  in  its  licensing  and  price  fixing  powers.  This  leads 
to  the  question,  what  powers  would  the  commission  have  over  prices. 


t 


The  regulation  of  prices  is  supported  both  by  historical  pre- 
cedent and  legal  decisions. 

Parliamentary  Regulation  of  Rates. 

In  1266  A.  D.  the  great  staples  like  wool  and  food  were  regu- 
lated. Henry  III.  regulated  the  price  of  bread  and  ale,  according  to 
the  price  of  wheat  and  barley,  and  forbade  cornering  the  market. 
(51  Hen.  3,  Stat.  1.) 

In  1337  it  was  made  a  felony  to  export  wool.  (11  Ed.  3, 
Cap.  1.) 

In  1349  butchers,  fish  mongers,  bakers,  poulterers  and  all  other 
sellers  of  all  manner  of  victuals  were  bound  to  sell  for  reasonable 
price.     (23  Ed.  3,  Cap.  1.) 
In  the  Colonies. 

In  1635  Massachusetts  merchants  were  forbidden  to  charge 
excessive  prices.     (Mass.  Colon.  Laws  673,  p.  120.) 

Chief  Justice  Waite  in  Munn  vs.  Illinois,  94  U.S.,  113,  said,  "In 
their  exercise  it  has  been  customary  in  England  from  time  inune- 
morial,  and  in  this  country  from  its  first  colonization,  to  regulate 
ferries,  conunon  carriers,  hackmen,  bakers,  millers,  inkeepers,  etc. 
To  this  day  statutes  are  to  be  found  in  many  of  the  states  upon  some 
or  all  of  these  subjects,  and  we  think  it  has  never  yet  been  success- 
fully contended  that  such  legislation  came  within  any  of  the  consti- 
tutional prohibitions  against  interference  with  private  property." 

Continuing,  the  Court  said  in  the  same  case,  "This  brings  us  to 
inquire  as  to  the  principles  upon  which  this  power  of  regulation 
rests,  in  order  that  we  may  determine  what  is  within  and  what 
without  its  operative  effect.  Looking,  then,  to  the  common  law,  from 
whence  comes  the  right  which  the  constitution  protects,  we  find  that 
when  private  property  is  affected  with  a  public  interest  it  ceases  to 
be  juris  private  only."  This  was  said  by  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale 
more  than  two  hundred  years  ago,  in  his  treatise  De  Portibus  Maris  1 
Harg  Law  Tracts  78,  and  has  been  accepted  without  objection  as  an 
essential  element  in  the  law  of  property  ever  since.  Property  does 
become  clothed  with  a  public  interest  when  used  in  a  manner  to 
make  it  of  public  consequence  and  affect  the  community  at  large. 
When,  therefore,  one  devotes  his  property  to  a  use  in  which  the 
public  has  an  interest,  he,  in  effect,  grants  to  the  public  an  interest 
in  that  use,  and  must  submit  to  be  controlled  by  the  public  for  the 
common  good.  .  .  .  But  we  need  go  no  further.  Enough  has 
already  been  said  to  show  that,  when  private  property  is  devoted  to  a 
public  use,  it  is  subject  to  public  regulation.  It  remains  only  to 
ascertain  whether  the  (grain)  warehouse  of  these  plaintiffs  in  error, 
and  the  business  which  is  carried  on  there,  come  within  the  opera- 
tion of  this  principle.  .  .  .  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  if  the 
common  carriers  or  the  miller,  or  the  ferryman,  or  the  baker,  or  the 
cartman  pursues  a  public  employment  and  exercises  a  sort  of  public 
office,  these  plaintiffs  in  error  do  not." 

47 


I 


It  is  said  in  8  Cyc.  1117,  "When  a  business  is  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  be  effected  with  a  public  interest,  the  state  may  require  that 
charges  shall  be  reasonable,  and  may  adopt  measures  necessary  to 
secure  that  result."  Dillon  vs.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  43  N.Y.,  suppl.  320, 
Munn  vs.  Illinois  94  U.S.  113.  In  Budd  vs.  People  143  U.S.  517,  it 
was  held  that  the  laws  of  New  York  (1888)  C.  581,  fixing  a  maxi- 
mum charge  of  5/8  of  a  cent  per  bushel  for  elevating  grain  is  not 
taking  private  property  without  due  process  of  law,  but  is  a  valid 
exercise  of  the  police  power,  as  well  in  its  application  to  elevators 
owned  by  private  individuals  as  to  those  owned  by  companies  hav- 
ing chartered  privileges  from  the  state,  since  the  business  as  carried 
on  is  affected  with  a  public  interest  and  is  a  practical  monopoly. 

"A  power  granted  to  the  corporation  of  the  City  of  Mobile  to 
license  bakers  and  regulate  the  weight  and  price  of  bread,  and  pro- 
hibit the  baking  for  sale,  except  by  those  licensed,  is  not  contrary  to 
the  constitution  of  the  state."  Mayor  of  Mobile  vs.  Vuille  3,  Ala.  137. 

The  following  cases  have  held  that  it  is  competent  for  the  legis- 
lature of  a  state  through  the  agency  of  a  commission  when  the  wel- 
fare of  the  public  is  at  stake  to  limit  and  regulate  charges  and  prices. 
Carriers, 

Commonwealth  vs.  Inter.  Consol.  Lt.  Ry.  Co.  187  Mass.  436 

San  Antonio  Traction  Co.  vs.  Altgelt  815  W.  106-200  U.S.  304. 

See  American  &  English  Encyc.  Vol.  23  p.  655  and  cases  cited. 

Stone  vs.  Farmers  Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  116  U.S.  307. 

Dillon  vs.  Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Misc.  116. 

Waldorf  Astoria  Co.  vs.  City  of  N.Y.  212  N.Y.  97. 
Water  Companies, 

Tampa  Water  Works  Co.  vs.  City  of  Tampa  199  U.S.  241. 

San  Diego  Water  Co.  vs.  City  of  San  Diego  118  Cal.  556. 

Spring  Valley  Waterworks  vs.  Bartlett  16  Fed.  615. 
Stockyard  Companies, 

Cotting  &  Kansas  City  Stock  Yards  Co.,  82  Fed.  839. 
Gas  Companies, 

Richman  &  Consolidated  Gas.   Co.   of  N.  Y.   114  A.D.  216, 
affirmed  186  N.Y.  209. 

Trustees  of  Village  of  Saratoga  Springs  vs.  Saratoga  Gas,  Elec- 
tric Light  &  Power  Co.,  191  N.Y.  123. 
Reversing  122  A.D.  203. 
Grain  Elevators, 

Budd  vs.  People  143  U.S.  517. 

People  vs.  Walsh,  117  N.Y.  1. 

Brass  vs.  State,  153  U.S.  391. 

In  Re  Annan,  50  Hun  413. 

Under  the  sanction  of  these  decisions,  then,  could  not  a  milk 
commission  regulate  the  price  of  milk?  In  the  language  of  Justice 
Waite  on  Munn  vs.  Illinois  above  quoted,  "It  is  difficult  to  see  why 
if  the  common  carrier  or  the  miller  or  the  ferryman  or  the  baker  or 
the  cartman  pursues  a  public  employment,"  prices  can  be  fixed  for 

48 


these  services,  the  milk  business  is  not  equally  in  the  public  interest 
and  equally  subject  to  price  regulation. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  both  in  theory  and  legally,  that  a 
properly  constituted  milk  commission  would  be  able  to  exert  a  most 
beneficent  influence  upon  the  industry.  But  if  it  would  properly 
serve  the  people  in  fixing  and  regulating  prices,  it  must  take  as  its 
standard  an  efficiently  conducted  industry  throughout  and  must  be 
clothed  with  power  both  to  investigate  and  compel  that  efficiency  a» 
a  prerequisite  to  granting  licenses  for  entrance  to  its  markets.  The 
main  difficulties  with  the  practical  carrying  out  of  the  idea  would  be 
of  a  political  nature.  It  is  not  only  the  up-state  dairyman  who  is  in 
conflict  with  the  city  dealer,  but  there  has  been  for  years  a  division 
between  New  York  City  and  the  up-state  voter.  Those  state  officers 
who  would  probably  have  the  appointing  power  under  our  scheme 
would  hesitate  to  take  any  stand  that  might  be  construed  as  antago- 
nistic to  the  farmer.  While  this  plan  of  public  regulation  by  a  com- 
mission could  be  so  administered  as  to  be  a  great  blessing  to  the 
New  York  State  dairyman,  it  is  very  likely  he  would  not  see  it 
that  way. 

Then,  again,  the  personnel  of  the  commissioners  would  have  to 
be  right.  If  politics  could  be  kept  out  of  their  appointment  and  the 
ideal  of  service  could  be  brought  into  their  work  a  splendid  economic 
contribution  might  be  made  by  them.  If  politics  did  enter  into  their 
appointment  and  work,  the  commission  would  be  detrimental  to  th^ 
industry  and  to  the  public.    Herein  lies  the  rub. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Case  for  Public  Ownership  of  the  Milk  Industry. 

When  a  business  of  real  public  importance  can  be  carried  on 
advantageously  only  upon  so  large  a  scale  as  to  render  the  liberty  of 
competition  almost  illusory,  it  is  an  unthrifty  dispensation  of  the 
public  resources  that  several  costly  sets  of  arrangements  should  be 
kept  up  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  community  this  one  service. 
It  is  much  better  to  treat  it  at  once  as  a  public  function,  and,  if  it 
be  not  such  as  the  government  could  beneficially  undertake,  it  should 
be  made  over  entire  to  the  company  or  association  which  will  per- 
form it  on  the  best  terms  for  the  public— John  Stuart  Mill, 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  proposition  that  the  City  of  New 
York  should  acquire  the  milk  industry,  not  upon  the  basis  of  the 
socialist,  whose  economic  reasoning  would  justify  the  public  owner- 
ship of  any  industry,  but  upon  the  grounds  that  are  usually  given 
and  legally  maintained,  under  our  present  theories  of  private  owner- 
ship and  so-called  capitalistic  economy,  for  the  ownership  by  munici- 
palities of  public  utilities  and  public  service  agencies.  We  have 
previously  alluded  to  the  fact  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  the 
various  functions  of  the  milk  business,  either  in  producing  or  dis- 
tributing ,  are  performing  a  public  service.  In  the  former  chapter 
we  have  presented  legal  opinion  to  the  effect  that  those  who  devote 

49 


I 


II 

II 


their  property  to  the  milk  business  are  devoting  it  to  a  use  in  which 
the  public  has  an  interest,  and  therefore  in  effect  grants  to  the 
public  an  interest  in  that  use,  and  must  submit  to  be  controlled  by 
the  public  for  the  conmion  good.  We  must  now  consider  whether 
that  interest  of  the  public  is  so  great  as  to  justify  its  assuming  the 
ownership  under  the  law  just  as  it  does  for  instance  in  the  case  of 
municipally  owned  water  works. 

There  is  something  incongruous,  perhaps,  in  comparing  and 
likening  the  public  ownership  of  the  water  supply  to  that  of  the 
milk  supply.  But  there  is  much  that  is  similar  in  the  two  cases,  and 
in  selecting  water  for  comparison,  we  have  not  gone  to  the  shady 
borderland  of  propositions  for  municipal  ownership,  but  have  chosen 
something  on  which  the  reasoning  and  legal  decision  are  well 
settled. 

"The  general  power  given  a  municipal  corporation  in  respect 
to  police  regulations,  the  preservation  of  the  public  health,  and  the 
general  welfare  includes  the  power  to  establish  municipal  water- 
works."   Ellinwood  vs.  Reedsburg,  91  Wis.  131,  64  N.W.  885. 

In  Grace  vs.  Hawkinsville,  101  Ga.  553,  28  S.E.  1021,  the  rule 
is  recognized  that  a  municipal  corporation  has  power,  under  a  gen- 
eral welfare  clause  in  its  charter,  to  construct  and  maintain  water- 
works necessary  to  provide  citizens  with  water  for  drinking  and 
other  domestic  purposes. 

"A  supply  of  water  for  municipal  purposes,  as  well  as  for  the 
iise  of  its  inhabitants,  is  a  city  purpose  wi^in  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision forbidding  the  incurring  of  indebtedness  except  for  city  pur- 
poses."   Re  Comstock,  25  N.Y.  S.R.  611,  5  N.Y.  Supp.  874. 

"A  municipal  corporation  does  not  lose  its  municipal  character, 
and  become  a  private  or  business  corporation,  by  erecting  water- 
works and  supplying  its  citizens  with  water."  Lehigh  Water  Co.'s 
Appeal,  102  Pa.  515. 

In  Heqnembourg  vs.  City  of  Dunkirk  49  Hun  550,  the  Court,  in 
holding  that  the  construction  and  operation  by  a  city  of  a  plant  for 
the  purpose  of  supplying  electric  lights  to  the  city  and  its  inhabitants 
is  a  city  purpose,  says,  "Numerous  cases  have  arisen  in  which  large 
and  extensive  waterworks  had  been  established  for  the  purpose  of 
supplying  cities  and  villages  with  pure,  wholesome  water.  In  such 
cases,  the  water  has  been  furnished  to  private  consumers  at  fixed 
rates  and  the  power  to  do  this  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  courts  as 
one  properly  exercised  by  the  municipal  government,  pure  and 
wholesome  water  being  recognized  as  necessary  to  preserve  the  public 
health,  and  in  various  cities  gas  works  have  been  established  in 
which  light  has  been  supplied  by  the  municipality  to  private  resi- 
dences at  a  fixed  charge  as  well  as  used  for  the  lighting  of  the 
streets." 

Dillon  in  his  work  on  Municipal  Corporations  on  page  2118, 
says,  "The  furnishing  of  a  supply  of  water,  not  only  as  protection 
against  fires  and  for  sanitary  purposes,  including  sewers,  but  also  for 

50 


I 


the  individual  use  of  the  inhabitants  of  a  municipality,  has  always 
been  recognized  as  a  proper  public  and  municipal  purpose,  based 
upon  the  inherent  and  palpable  necessity  of  the  case  and  the  customs 
of  thickly  settled  communities." 

Let  us  look  at  milk  and  water  side  by  side. 

First  Parallel. 


Water 

1.  Municipality  uses  it. 

2.  Universally  used  by  inhab- 

itants. 

3.  Constantly  used. 

4.  Essential  to  public  health. 

5.  No  substitutes. 

6.  Must  be  clean  and  pure. 

7.  Will  carry  infection. 

8.  Quality  must  be  controlled. 

9.  Main  sources  outside  city. 

10.  Private  interests  may  sell  un- 

der special  authorization. 

11.  Business  tends  toward  mon- 

opoly. 

12.  Usually   requires   power   of 

eminent  domain. 

13.  Makes  peculiar  use  of  public 

streets,  necessitating  special 
grant. 


Milk 

1.  Municipality  uses  it  propor- 

tionately less. 

2.  Universally  used  by  inhab- 

itants. 

3.  Constantly  used. 

4.  Essential  to  public  health. 

5.  No  substitutes. 

6.  Must  be  clean  and  pure. 

7.  Will  carry  infection. 

8.  Quality  must  be  controlled. 

9.  Main  sources  outside  city. 

10.  Private    interests    may    sell 

without  special  authoriza- 
tion. 

11.  Business  tends  toward  mon- 

opoly. 

12.  Does  not  require  power  of 

eminent  domain. 

13.  Does  not  do  so. 


The  points  that  are  generally  sustained  by  the  courts  for  the 
municipal  ownership  of  any  business  are,  first,  business  tends  toward 
monopoly;  second,  public  nature  and  purpose  of  the  business,  and, 
third,  public  welfare.  In  the  above  parallel  these  three  points  seem 
to  be  as  well  covered  in  the  case  of  milk  as  of  water,  the  main  differ- 
ence between  the  two  being  that  water  is  cheaper  than  milk  and  the 
fact  that  we  are  more  accustomed  to  think  of  water  in  connection  with 
municipal  ownership  than  milk.  This  is  partly  because  the  import- 
ance of  milk  as  a  carrier  of  disease  and  the  necessity  for  the  public 
supervision  of  its  wholesomeness  and  quality  has  only  been  appre- 
ciated during  the  past  decade. 

In  the  case  of  Sun  Printing  &  Pub.  Asso.  vs.  New  York  8  App. 
Div.  230,  238,  40  N.Y.  Supp.  607,  611,  affirmed  in  152  N.Y.  257, 
37  L.R.A.  788,  46  N.E.  499,  the  Court  employed  the  following  lan- 
guage: "The  true  test  is  that  which  requires  rfiat  the  work  shall  be 
essentially  public  and  for  the  general  good  of  all  die  inhabitants  of 
the  city.  It  must  not  be  undertaken  merely  for  gain  or  for  private 
objects.  Gain  or  loss  may  incidentally  follow,  but  the  purpose  must 
be  primarily  to  satisfy  the  need  or  contribute  to  the  convenience  of 
the  people  of  the  city  at  large.  Within  that  sphere  of  action,  novelty 
should  impose  no  veto.    Should  some  inventive  genius  bye  and  bye 

51 


Mlllpl 


t 


I 


I  \ 


II 


create  a  system  for  supplying  us  with  pure  air,  will  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  be  powerless  to  utilize  it  in  the  great  cities  of  the 
state,  however  extreme  the  want  and  dangerous  the  delay?  Will  it 
then  be  said  that  pure  air  is  not  so  important  as  pure  water  and  clear 
light?     We  apprehend  not." 

In  Pond  on  the  Control  of  Public  Utilities,  p.  28,  it  is  said: 
*The  courts  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  only  within  the  power 
of  the  cities,  but  that  it  is  their  duty,  to  keep  themselves  free  to  accept 
for  their  own  use  and  to  provide  for  their  inhabitants  new  inven- 
tions and  superior  agencies  as  they  arise,  and  that  cities  are  not  to 
be  restricted  to  the  providing  for  the  strict  necessities  of  their  citi- 
zens, but  that  they  may  also  minister  to  their  comfort  and  pleasure." 

Dillon  in  his  work  on  Municipal  Corporations,  2089  says,  "The 
term  *public  utility'  might,  in  an  extended  sense,  include  the  laying 
out,  arranging  and  regulating  streets  and  highways,  wharves,  parks, 
etc.,  (in  State  vs.  Barnes  22  Okla.  191)  but,  in  the  more  restricted 
sense  in  which  it  is  generally  used,  its  meaning  is  limited  to  those 
enterprises  which  have  for  their  end,  the  sale  of  commodities  and 
the  rendition  of  service,  which  to  some  extent  are  for  private  ad- 
vantage or  convenience  of  individual  inhabitants. 

On  page  2100,  he  says,  "But  a  complete  definition  of  a  *city 
purpose'  is  not  possible  in  view  of  the  inmiense  variety  of  objects 
which  have  been  found  to  be  necessary  to  the  health  and  welfare  of 
modern  municipalities.  (Sun  Pub.  Assoc,  vs.  N.  Y.  C.  152  N.  Y.  257. 
See  New  York  City,  Matter  of,  99  N.  Y.  569.)  Each  case  must  de- 
pend largely  upon  its  own  facts,  and  the  meaning  of  these  words 
must  be  evolved  as  successive  cases  arise  by  a  process  of  exclusion 
and  inclusion  in  judicial  construction."  (People  vs.  Kelly,  76  N.  Y. 
475.) 

On  page  2102,  he  says,  "But  a  dividing  line  between  what  is  a 
municipal  purpose  and  what  is  not,  is  in  many  cases  shadowy  and 
uncertain,  great  weight  should  be  given  by  the  courts  to  the  legis- 
lative determination,  and  its  action  should  not  be  annulled  unless 
the  purpose  appears  clearly  to  be  one  not  authorized.  (People  vs. 
Kelly,  76  N.  Y.  475,  489.)  While  city  purposes  will  usually  find 
their  development  within  the  municipal  limits,  such  purposes  are 
not  necessarily  limited  to  a  work  or  expenditure  within  the  city." 

Another  Case  Sustaining  Public  Ownership — Ice. 

In  Holton  vs.  Camilla  134  Ga.  560,  the  Court  holds  that,  "The 
operation  of  an  ice  plant  by  the  municipal  authorities  of  the  city  of 
Camilla,  in  connection  with  the  electric  light  and  waterworks  plant, 
for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  ice  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  is 
not  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  this  state,  or  otherwise  illegal." 
The  answer  of  the  defendant,  which  was  introduced  in  evidence  and 
considered  upon  the  trial,  states  that,  "In  the  hot  climate  in  which 
the  city  of  Camilla  is  situated  ice  is  necessary  for  the  comfort, 
health  and  convenience  of  its  inhabitants.    If  this  is  true,  why  should 

52 


not  the  city  be  permitted  to  furnish  ice  to  its  inhabitants?  And  if 
the  furnishing  of  ice  to  its  inhabitants  is  conducive  generally  to  their 
health,  comfort  and  convenience,  it  is  certainly  being  furnished  for  a 
municipal  or  public  purpose.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  one  of  the 
main  uses  to  which  ice  is  put  is  the  cooling  of  water  for  drinking 
purposes;  and  when  it  is  used  for  this  purpse,  if  impure,  it  is  as  apt 
to  be  deleterious  to  the  consumer  as  any  other  impure  water.  Why 
then  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  power,  may  not  a  city  guard  against 
impurities  in  the  ice  as  well  as  the  water  used  by  its  inhabitants?" 

Cases  Held  Not  to  Warrant  Pubuc  Ownership. 
Coal  and  Wood  as  Fuel 

Opinion  of  Judges,  15  L.  R.  A.  809,  "The  purchase  by  the  city 
or  town  of  coal  and  wood  as  fuel,  and  the  resale  thereof  to  its  in- 
habitants, is  not  a  public  service  which  can  be  authorized  by  the 
Legislature.  We  are  not  aware  of  any  necessity  why  cities  and  towns 
should  undertake  this  form  of  business,  any  more  than  many  others 
which  have  always  been  conducted  by  private  enterprise;  and  we 
are  not  called  upon  to  consider  what  extraordinary  powers  the  Com- 
monwealth may  exercise,  in  extraordinary  exigencies,  for  the  safety 
of  the  state  or  the  welfare  of  the  inhabitants." 

Re  Municipal  Fuel  Plants  60  L.  R.  A.,  592,  the  Court  holds, 
"Municipalities  have  authority  to  provide  fuel  for  paupers;  but 
they  cannot  be  given  power  by  the  legislature  to  buy  and  sell  fuel 
in  competition  with  private  enterprise,  although  it  is  scare  and  high 
in  price  and  the  cost  to  consumers  may  be  thereby  reduced,  unless 
there  is  such  a  scarcity  as  to  create  a  general  and  wide-spread  dis- 
tress in  the  community,  which  cannot  be  met  by  private  enterprise. 
We  are  not  called  upon  to  consider  whether  the  legislature  would 
deem  it  advisable,  if  it  has  the  power,  to  authorize  cities  and  towns 
to  build  storehouses  in  which  to  keep  large  quantities  of  fuel  in  an- 
ticipation of  a  possible  famine.  In  regard  to  the  fourth  of  the  pos- 
sible consequences, — a  condition  in  which  the  supply  of  fuel  would 
be  so  small,  and  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  so  great,  that  persons  de- 
siring to  purchase  it  would  be  unable  to  supply  themselves  through 
private  enterprise, — it  is  conceivable  that  agencies  of  government 
might  be  able  to  obtain  fuel  when  citizens  generally  could  not.  Under 
such  circumstances  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  government  might  con- 
stitute itself  an  agent  for  the  relief  of  the  community,  and  that  money 
expended  for  the  purpose  would  be  expended  for  public  use." 

So,  in  Baker  vs.  Grand  Rapids,  142  Mich.  687,  106  N.  W.  208, 
it  was  held  that,  "The  use  of  a  fund  by  a  municipal  corporation  for 
the  purpose  of  buying  and  selling  coal  in  the  time  of  scarcity  of  fuel 
was  not  a  public  use,  and  was  therefore  unauthorized." 

On  the  other  hand,  in  Jones  against  the  city  of  Portland  245 
U.  S.  217,  it  is  held  that  a  law  of  Maine  authorizing  any  city  or 
town  to  establish  and  maintain  a  permanent  wood,  coal  and  fuel 
yard  for  the  purpose  of  selling  wood,  coal  and  fuel  to  its  inhabi- 
tants at  cost  does  not  take  the  property  of  tax  payers  for  private 

S3 


"III! illliilll 


I 


r 


k 


uses  in  violation  of  the  fourteenth  amendment,  especially  where  the 
highest  court  of  the  state  has  declared  such  purpose  to  be  a  public 


one. 


The  legislature  of  Louisiana,  on  the  8th  of  March,  1869,  passed 
an  act  granting  to  a  corporation,  created  by  it,  the  exclusive  right, 
for  twenty-five  years  to  have  and  maintain  slaughter-houses,  landings 
for  cattle,  and  yards  for  inclosing  cattle  intended  for  sale  or  slaugh- 
ter within  certain  parishes  including  the  city  of  New  Orleans  and  a 
population  between  two  and  three  hundred  thousand  people  and 
prohibiting  all  other  persons  from  building,  keeping,  or  having 
slaughter-houses,  landings  for  cattle,  and  yards  for  cattle  intended 
for  sale  or  slaughter,  within  those  limits.  It  was  held  that  this  grant 
of  exclusive  right  or  privilege  guarded  by  proper  limitation  of  the 
prices  to  be  charged  and  imposing  the  duty  of  providing  ample  con- 
▼eniences  with  permission  to  all  owners  of  stock  to  land  and  of  all 
butchers  to  slaughter  at  those  places,  was  a  police  regulation  for 
the  health  and  comfort  of  the  people  within  the  power  of  the  State 
legislatures.    Slaughter  House  cases  16  Wallace  36. 

Second  Parallel 


MUk 

1.  Municipality  uses  it  for  hos- 

pitals, etc. 

2.  Universally  used  by  inhabi- 

tants. 

3.  Constantly  used. 

4.  Essential  to  public  health. 

5.  No  substitutes. 

6.  Must  be  clean  and  pure. 

7.  Will  carry  infection. 

8.  Quality  must  be  controlled. 

9.  Main  sources  outside  city. 

10.  Private  interests  sell. 

11.  Business  tends  towards  mon- 

opoly. 


Coal  or  Wood  for  Fuel 

1.  Municipality  uses  it  (incon- 
siderable unless  for  gas 
and  electricity). 

2.  Less  than  milk. 

3.  Less  than  milk. 

4.  At  times. 

5.  Yes,  natural  gas. 

6.  No. 

7.  No. 

8.  No. 

9.  Main  sources  outside  city. 

10.  Private  interests  sell. 

11.  No,  although  monopoly  was 
chief  reason  for  the  Maine 

U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.  decision. 

It  is  easily  seen  from  the  above  parallel  that  coal  and  wood  as 
fuel  lack  several  of  the  requisites  for  municipal  control  which  both 
milk  and  water  possess,  i.e.,  "essential  to  public  health,"  "quality  must 
be  controlled"  and  "business  tends  toward  monopoly,"  so  that  even 
if  the  Courts  have  held  against  coal  and  wood  for  public  control,  it 
only  tends  to  support  the  doctrine  that  each  case  must  depend  largely 
on  its  own  facts.  °    ' 

Assuming  then,  that  the  milk  industry  conforms  to  so  many 
ttsential  requirements  for  municipal  ownership  as  announced  by 
American  legal  decisions,  we  believe  there  is  a  good  case  on  the  law 

54 


of  the  matter,  conferring  the  power  on  New  York  City  to  own  the 
industry,  especially  if  it  is  supported  by  legislative  enactment. 

We  come  now  to  the  various  ways  in  which  municipal  owner- 
ship and  control  may  manifest  itself. 
PLAN  1 

(a)  Municipal  ownership  of  city  delivery  equipment,  pasteur- 
izing plants  and  milk  markets. 

(b)  Private  ownership  of  production  sources. 
PLAN  2 

(a)  Municipal  ownership  of  city  delivery  equipment,  pasteur- 
izing plants  and  milk  markets. 

(b)  Gradual  organization  and  control  of  enough  of  production 
to  dominate  the  rest. 

PLAN  3 

(a)  Granting  monopoly  privilege  to  a  private  milk  company 
already  organized  and  equipped  to  give  city  service. 

(b)  Regulating  enough   of  production   by   law   and  through 
police  power  to  assure  supply. 

The  first  plan  above  outlined  has  been  often  suggested.  It 
would  enable  many  efficiencies  to  be  inaugurated,  first,  in  the  city 
delivery  of  milk  such  as  carrying  capacity  loads  on  the  milk  de- 
livery wagons  or  zoning  the  city;  second,  by  the  proper  organization 
and  placement  of  pasteurizing  plants  whereby  overhead  charges 
could  be  saved  by  operating  properly  located  plants  to  their  capacity, 
and  third,  by  bringing  unity  of  policy  into  the  city  milk  market  situa- 
tion. For  instance,  the  infant  feeding  station  idea  could  be  extended 
by  opening  these  stations  all  over  the  city  so  ibat  whosoever  desired, 
whether  they  had  children  in  the  family  or  not,  could  go  to  the  sta- 
tions for  milk  and  thus  save  to  themselves  tbe  extra  cost  of  wagon 
delivery.  Of  course,  there  might  be  some  sanitary  objections  to  this 
process,  requiring  the  regulation  of  both  the  manner  of  handling  the 
milk  in  the  stations  and  in  the  hands  of  the  purchasing  consumer. 
The  practical  carrying  out  of  this  idea,  however,  would  make  con- 
siderable difference  in  the  price  to  the  consumers  who  would  pur- 
chase it  in  this  way.  The  main  reason  that  the  stations  are  not  fur- 
ther extended  today,  is  because  of  the  desire  of  the  Board  of  Health 
not  to  interfere  with  private  business  enterprise. 

Another  way  that  the  extension  of  milk  stations  would  reduce 
the  price  to  the  consumer,  would  be  in  saving  of  bottles  which  can 
there  be  brought  under  almost  perfect  control.  One  has  only  to  look 
in  ash  cans,  vacant  fields  and  apartment  house  cellars  to  understand 
the  appalling  losses  in  milk  bottles  now  borne  by  the  public.  This 
plan,  however,  would  leave  the  control  of  production  in  the  same 
hands  as  it  is  today.  The  producers  could  strike  at  the  prices  paid 
by  the  city  just  as  well  as  at  those  paid  by  the  milk  dealer  and  there 
would  be  no  assurance  of  a  continuous  supply  of  milk.  On  the  other 
hand,  by  leaving  the  market  control  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  city, 
the  prices  could  be  made  so  attractive  to  the  milk  producer,  that  pro- 

55 


-^m":'. 


duction  would  be  stimulated  and  consequently  successful  production 
strikes  less  likelv 

l^e^S'plan  provides  for  the  same  .ype  of  municipal  own- 
ership  in  the  city  and  also  for  the  gradual  extension  of  control  over 
enough  of  production  to  insure  the  city  a  minimum  supply  of  milk 
no  matter  what  the  organizations  of  dairymen  on  the  outside  might 
do.  In  theory,  it  might  be  conceived  that  the  city  should  attempt  to 
produce  milk  by  owning  the  land  and  the  cows  for  the  purpose.  On 
the  theory  that  such  ownership  was  for  a  city  purpose,  the  law  would 
probably  sustain  such  action.  There  are  cities  in  Europe  today 
where  the  cows  and  production  are  publicly  owned.  But,  such  a 
course  here  would,  while  presenting  the  field  for  a  very  pretty 
theoretical  experiment  in  efficient  production,  cost  more  money  and 
require  more  organizing  ability  than  New  York  City  probably  pos- 
sesses. On  the  other  hand,  by  adopting  the  idea  of  the  regulating 
commission  such  as  was  discussed  in  our  last  chapter,  enough  of 
production  might  be  dominated  in  this  way  to  assure  the  City  of  its 
proper  milk  supply. 

The  third  plan  contemplates  the  idea  of  allowing  the  tendency 
of  monopoly  among  the  milk  dealers  in  the  city,  to  have  full  play 
by  permitting  the  consolidation  of  companies  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  monopoly  privilege  of  supplying  the  city  with  milk. 
This  plan  would  have  no  advantages  over  the  present  situation  in 
protecting  the  city  against  production  strikes  unless  the  idea  of  the 
regulating  commission  was  also  adopted  to  assure  the  continuous 
production  and  supply  of  milk  to  the  city. 

The  main  attempt  that  has  been  made  in  this  study  has  been  to 
set  out  the  problem  as  it  has  appeared  to  the  writer  after  considerable 
study  and  thought,  with  the  idea  that  some  suggestion  might  be  con- 
tributed to  those  who  will  finally  have  the  burden  of  solving  the  milk 
problem.  The  writer  himself  is  committed  to  the  theory  of  natural 
co-operation  and  private  control  of  the  industry  and  believes  thor- 
oughly that  with  proper  leadership  and  encouragement  from  the 
New  York  public,  the  milk  industry  can  be  made  one  of  the  most 
interesting,  useful  and  efficient  of  American  industrial  enterprises. 

The  function  of  government  is  not  business  and  those  engaged 
in  public  life  will  do  better  in  adhering  to  their  proper  functions. 
Politics  is  never  efficient  and  politics  would  certainly  enter  the  milk 
business  under  general  public  control.  Since  both  production  and 
distribution  are  distinct  functions  of  the  milk  industry,  each  depen- 
dent for  industrial  health  on  the  other  with  the  consumer  entitled  to 
efficiency  from  both,  the  first  great  requisite  is  the  co-operation  of 
producer,  distributor  and  consumer.  On  this  will  depend  the  biff* 
ness  and  the  health  of  the  industry.  Upon  this  bigness  and  healSi 
will  depend  the  profits  to  those  engaged  in  the  industry  and  the 
wholesomeness  of  the  product  received  by  the  consumer.  The  real 
interest  of  the  producer  is  not  production  alone,  but  a  healthy  milk 
industry  throughout.    The  real  interest  of  the  distributor  is  not  dis- 

56 


tribution  alone,  but  a  healthy  industry  throughout.  The  consumer's 
position  is  not  to  support  one  side  or  the  other,  but  to  insist  upon 
the  co-operation  of  both  these  interests  to  the  end  that  the  public 
may  be  better  and  constantly  served  with  a  healthful  milk  supply. 
If  this  is  done  hearty  support  should  be  accorded  both  producers  and 
dealers  alike. 


' 


fi 


1  f 


57 


i 


I  i 


VITA 

The  author  was  bom  in  Zanesville,  Ohio,  in  1875.  He  holds  the 
degree  of  A.B.  and  A.M.  from  Marietta  College  and  L.L.B.  from 
the  Ohio  State  University.  He  practised  law  in  Zanesville,  Ohio, 
served  two  terms  as  probate  and  juvenile  judge  of  Muskingum 
County,  Ohio,  and  was  United  States  Commissioner  in  the  Soudiern 
district  of  Ohio.  He  studied  in  the  Political  Science  Department  of 
Columbia  University  under  Professors  Beard,  Goodnow,  Giddings, 
Seager  and  Smith.  He  was  later  connected  with  the  New  York 
Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  where  he  was  assigned  to  special  milk 
investigations  in  the  city  and  state.  For  a  number  of  years  he  was 
Secretary  and  Director  of  the  New  York  milk  business  which  furn- 
ished the  city  infant  feeding  stations  with  milk  and  is  now  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Metropolitan  Trust  Company  of  New  York.  He 
has  been  an  occasional  contributor  to  the  Educational  Review, 
Scribner's  and  the  New  York  Times  Magazine. 


JAMES  ¥.   NEWCOMB  i  COMPANY.  Inc. 

Union  Pntnteis 

441   PEARL  STREET.  N.  Y. 


wlP 


I 


^ 


Date  Due 


yil^/f  o%oc^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0041402669 


D  310 


J44 


Jennings 


A  study  of  the  N.Y.  milk  problem 


1/3/6 


k 


*■  :' 


0  IT-  |-\       Q  A 


I 


\ 


Il 

! 

1 

■ 

1 

1  . 

i 


1 

^ 

IP*- 


f^: 


CPv^ 


n^si: 


